ECNL moving to school year part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just asking …

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

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ive only seen one big club with multiple locations run an "off the grid" league and it was all its own teams playing each other. You'd be splitting hairs if you called it a bunch of scheduled friendlies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just asking …

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

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree, and the longer GA and MLSN say nothing the more likely it becomes.

The idea that two different leagues one that's BY and another that's SY will cause chaos is nonsense. All that will happen is the different leagues will only play against each other and club tournaments will either be BY or 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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just asking …

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

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What club, and I can tell you which programs are fully inhouse and not sanctioned (if they have any) - and I can tell you which neighboring clubs have those programs that you can compare to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just asking …

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

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ive only seen one big club with multiple locations run an "off the grid" league and it was all its own teams playing each other. You'd be splitting hairs if you called it a bunch of scheduled friendlies.

Same question. What club. And I can tell you what other nearby clubs have the same. Many many many clubs that tier from rec (or ulittle) to ECNL / GA / MLSN have these programs. You probably just don’t know they’re not sanctioned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just asking …

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

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What club, and I can tell you which programs are fully inhouse and not sanctioned (if they have any) - and I can tell you which neighboring clubs have those programs that you can compare to.

The point I'm arguing isn't that in-house programs don't exist. The point I'm making is that they aren't at the size/scale to replace sanctioned leagues that everybody does. Basically, there aren't top-tier players who play years without sanctioning (at least in the US P2P system).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just asking …

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

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree, and the longer GA and MLSN say nothing the more likely it becomes.

The idea that two different leagues one that's BY and another that's SY will cause chaos is nonsense. All that will happen is the different leagues will only play against each other and club tournaments will either be BY or SY.

That’s assuming that mlsnext/GA aren’t saying anything because they have a plan. They likely aren’t saying anything because they have no plan.

Mlsnext/GA as BY will have a lot of difficulty existing in a youth soccer system that is entirely SY. These reasons have been discussed over and over on here. They would have to build out an entire BY system from u8 and up. We will see if that happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just asking …

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

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There already is confusion and chaos just regarding the BY to SY switch. For example, in a recent post of a large statewide soccer parent group, a parent complained how clubs get to decide whether to switch from BY to SY and how it would affect their kid and how wrong it was and parents needed to decide which team their kid gets to be on.

Needless to say many commenters tried to point out wrong this view was. The person only doubled-down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just asking …

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

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree, and the longer GA and MLSN say nothing the more likely it becomes.

The idea that two different leagues one that's BY and another that's SY will cause chaos is nonsense. All that will happen is the different leagues will only play against each other and club tournaments will either be BY or SY.

That’s assuming that mlsnext/GA aren’t saying anything because they have a plan. They likely aren’t saying anything because they have no plan.

Mlsnext/GA as BY will have a lot of difficulty existing in a youth soccer system that is entirely SY. These reasons have been discussed over and over on here. They would have to build out an entire BY system from u8 and up. We will see if that happens.

I think they have a plan -- which is not let their competition know what their doing until the last minute. The problem is that means they also aren't telling their customers, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just asking …

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

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree, and the longer GA and MLSN say nothing the more likely it becomes.

The idea that two different leagues one that's BY and another that's SY will cause chaos is nonsense. All that will happen is the different leagues will only play against each other and club tournaments will either be BY or SY.

That’s assuming that mlsnext/GA aren’t saying anything because they have a plan. They likely aren’t saying anything because they have no plan.

Mlsnext/GA as BY will have a lot of difficulty existing in a youth soccer system that is entirely SY. These reasons have been discussed over and over on here. They would have to build out an entire BY system from u8 and up. We will see if that happens.

I think they have a plan -- which is not let their competition know what their doing until the last minute. The problem is that means they also aren't telling their customers, either.

Yeah I think they will wait till after fall season or maybe into spring before it is announced what system they will use. They will keep all families guessing till as late as possible so most will just say “ oh well” and stay with current club. Smart families will go out and get options before things get announced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just asking …

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

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree, and the longer GA and MLSN say nothing the more likely it becomes.

The idea that two different leagues one that's BY and another that's SY will cause chaos is nonsense. All that will happen is the different leagues will only play against each other and club tournaments will either be BY or SY.

That’s assuming that mlsnext/GA aren’t saying anything because they have a plan. They likely aren’t saying anything because they have no plan.

Mlsnext/GA as BY will have a lot of difficulty existing in a youth soccer system that is entirely SY. These reasons have been discussed over and over on here. They would have to build out an entire BY system from u8 and up. We will see if that happens.

We're already seeing Pre-XYZ leagues all the way down to u11. Implementing a Pre-Pre-XYZ is just 3 more years. This is very likely to occur because its already happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just asking …

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

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What club, and I can tell you which programs are fully inhouse and not sanctioned (if they have any) - and I can tell you which neighboring clubs have those programs that you can compare to.

The point I'm arguing isn't that in-house programs don't exist. The point I'm making is that they aren't at the size/scale to replace sanctioned leagues that everybody does. Basically, there aren't top-tier players who play years without sanctioning (at least in the US P2P system).

Ok, thanks for clarifying. That point wasn’t clear until now.

You’re wrong though. Most of the power clubs have an in house feeder to their elite teams. The DMV chaos-musical-chairs structure isn’t normal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just asking …

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

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree, and the longer GA and MLSN say nothing the more likely it becomes.

The idea that two different leagues one that's BY and another that's SY will cause chaos is nonsense. All that will happen is the different leagues will only play against each other and club tournaments will either be BY or SY.

That’s assuming that mlsnext/GA aren’t saying anything because they have a plan. They likely aren’t saying anything because they have no plan.

Mlsnext/GA as BY will have a lot of difficulty existing in a youth soccer system that is entirely SY. These reasons have been discussed over and over on here. They would have to build out an entire BY system from u8 and up. We will see if that happens.

We're already seeing Pre-XYZ leagues all the way down to u11. Implementing a Pre-Pre-XYZ is just 3 more years. This is very likely to occur because its already happening.

PreXYZ is only in a small number of areas and only for top teams. In our area it’s only pre ecnl, nothing for mlsnext. Mlsnext/GA would have to create a system for second, third, etc ulittle teams as well as those teams are the ones helping to fund the top teams at p2p clubs. The entire club would have to be BY. They would have to create an entire system to be able to isolate themselves from the rest of youth soccer that will be SY.

It could be done. Disagree that it’s likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just asking …

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

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree, and the longer GA and MLSN say nothing the more likely it becomes.

The idea that two different leagues one that's BY and another that's SY will cause chaos is nonsense. All that will happen is the different leagues will only play against each other and club tournaments will either be BY or SY.

That’s assuming that mlsnext/GA aren’t saying anything because they have a plan. They likely aren’t saying anything because they have no plan.

Mlsnext/GA as BY will have a lot of difficulty existing in a youth soccer system that is entirely SY. These reasons have been discussed over and over on here. They would have to build out an entire BY system from u8 and up. We will see if that happens.

We're already seeing Pre-XYZ leagues all the way down to u11. Implementing a Pre-Pre-XYZ is just 3 more years. This is very likely to occur because its already happening.

These leagues don't have that many clubs in them -- just the 100 or so in the top level league. That's not much of a pipeline from just those clubs. The secret sauce to these leagues is their recruitment from elsewhere. Parents who play in these pathways should understand there's high turnover once 11v11 starts -- some because of burnout and some because clubs are ruthless when it comes to winning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just asking …

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

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What club, and I can tell you which programs are fully inhouse and not sanctioned (if they have any) - and I can tell you which neighboring clubs have those programs that you can compare to.

The point I'm arguing isn't that in-house programs don't exist. The point I'm making is that they aren't at the size/scale to replace sanctioned leagues that everybody does. Basically, there aren't top-tier players who play years without sanctioning (at least in the US P2P system).

Ok, thanks for clarifying. That point wasn’t clear until now.

You’re wrong though. Most of the power clubs have an in house feeder to their elite teams. The DMV chaos-musical-chairs structure isn’t normal.

Sure, some large clubs with multiple "franchises" might have an in-house feeder. In my area, that's like 2 mega clubs and ALL those mega clubs play in the USYS at lower levels. And those clubs still will replace those in-house recruits for anyone better from the outside. In fact, sometimes the best way to get to a higher team is to leave a club/system, where the current place already has decided whether your kid has A team potential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just asking …

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

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree, and the longer GA and MLSN say nothing the more likely it becomes.

The idea that two different leagues one that's BY and another that's SY will cause chaos is nonsense. All that will happen is the different leagues will only play against each other and club tournaments will either be BY or SY.

That’s assuming that mlsnext/GA aren’t saying anything because they have a plan. They likely aren’t saying anything because they have no plan.

Mlsnext/GA as BY will have a lot of difficulty existing in a youth soccer system that is entirely SY. These reasons have been discussed over and over on here. They would have to build out an entire BY system from u8 and up. We will see if that happens.

We're already seeing Pre-XYZ leagues all the way down to u11. Implementing a Pre-Pre-XYZ is just 3 more years. This is very likely to occur because its already happening.

PreXYZ is only in a small number of areas and only for top teams. In our area it’s only pre ecnl, nothing for mlsnext. Mlsnext/GA would have to create a system for second, third, etc ulittle teams as well as those teams are the ones helping to fund the top teams at p2p clubs. The entire club would have to be BY. They would have to create an entire system to be able to isolate themselves from the rest of youth soccer that will be SY.

It could be done. Disagree that it’s likely.

Another way to look at this is ECNL through US Club pissed off MLSN + GA enough that US Club lost half of the littles sanctioning fees. Basically they created more work for themselves and lost registrations/money in doing so.