ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ECNL making the change to school year makes absolute sense. They are a college tracked league so having all their players segmented based on what the College coaches want to evaluate on makes perfect sense. No more, highlighting who is a 2025 vs a 2026 grad on a brochure. Coaches can watch the game and evaluate everyone playing knowing they are in his/her recruiting target.

Stop will the nonsense debate about biobanding, emails or not, this change will come and it actually makes sense. All the chatter about MLS Next is nonsense because the largest percentage of kids will stop playing at the end of highschool, the next group are going to play in college, and a very small sliver will go pro. So why punish the majority of youth players in the hopes that .0000001% of the players being scouted by a pro team is in a league grouped by birth year.

Why should US Soccer and Colleges twist themselves in knots about what ECNL parents want when their primary pool of male players are in MLS Clubs and MLS Next?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this could also be the reason ECNL/US Club/USYS would tell US Soccer to f off if there was a passionate disagreement. US Soccer claims to be top dog on these decisions, and gives lip service to caring about "grassroots." But if they show they don't actually care, only caring about the national team and pros, more organizations might stop listening to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ECNL making the change to school year makes absolute sense. They are a college tracked league so having all their players segmented based on what the College coaches want to evaluate on makes perfect sense. No more, highlighting who is a 2025 vs a 2026 grad on a brochure. Coaches can watch the game and evaluate everyone playing knowing they are in his/her recruiting target.

Stop will the nonsense debate about biobanding, emails or not, this change will come and it actually makes sense. All the chatter about MLS Next is nonsense because the largest percentage of kids will stop playing at the end of highschool, the next group are going to play in college, and a very small sliver will go pro. So why punish the majority of youth players in the hopes that .0000001% of the players being scouted by a pro team is in a league grouped by birth year.

Why should US Soccer and Colleges twist themselves in knots about what ECNL parents want when their primary pool of male players are in MLS Clubs and MLS Next?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this could also be the reason ECNL/US Club/USYS would tell US Soccer to f off if there was a passionate disagreement. US Soccer claims to be top dog on these decisions, and gives lip service to caring about "grassroots." But if they show they don't actually care, only caring about the national team and pros, more organizations might stop listening to them.

Ridiculous statement 🙄

Changing to school year has nothing to do with grassroots and development.

[Anonymous]

This is an issue that will be decided by US Club Soccer, in conjunction with other associations, in November most likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ECNL making the change to school year makes absolute sense. They are a college tracked league so having all their players segmented based on what the College coaches want to evaluate on makes perfect sense. No more, highlighting who is a 2025 vs a 2026 grad on a brochure. Coaches can watch the game and evaluate everyone playing knowing they are in his/her recruiting target.

Stop will the nonsense debate about biobanding, emails or not, this change will come and it actually makes sense. All the chatter about MLS Next is nonsense because the largest percentage of kids will stop playing at the end of highschool, the next group are going to play in college, and a very small sliver will go pro. So why punish the majority of youth players in the hopes that .0000001% of the players being scouted by a pro team is in a league grouped by birth year.

Why should US Soccer and Colleges twist themselves in knots about what ECNL parents want when their primary pool of male players are in MLS Clubs and MLS Next?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this could also be the reason ECNL/US Club/USYS would tell US Soccer to f off if there was a passionate disagreement. US Soccer claims to be top dog on these decisions, and gives lip service to caring about "grassroots." But if they show they don't actually care, only caring about the national team and pros, more organizations might stop listening to them.

Ridiculous statement 🙄

Changing to school year has nothing to do with grassroots and development.

You'd better explain to enlighten us, because most of the posts on here seem to think SY is beneficial for grassroots soccer.

[Anonymous]

Change to grad year will benefit ECNL a lot. It is hard to see if they do not do something about it soon. Even without USSF approval, I bet they will give the option to allow a certain number of trapped players to play down in their grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ECNL making the change to school year makes absolute sense. They are a college tracked league so having all their players segmented based on what the College coaches want to evaluate on makes perfect sense. No more, highlighting who is a 2025 vs a 2026 grad on a brochure. Coaches can watch the game and evaluate everyone playing knowing they are in his/her recruiting target.

Stop will the nonsense debate about biobanding, emails or not, this change will come and it actually makes sense. All the chatter about MLS Next is nonsense because the largest percentage of kids will stop playing at the end of highschool, the next group are going to play in college, and a very small sliver will go pro. So why punish the majority of youth players in the hopes that .0000001% of the players being scouted by a pro team is in a league grouped by birth year.

Why should US Soccer and Colleges twist themselves in knots about what ECNL parents want when their primary pool of male players are in MLS Clubs and MLS Next?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this could also be the reason ECNL/US Club/USYS would tell US Soccer to f off if there was a passionate disagreement. US Soccer claims to be top dog on these decisions, and gives lip service to caring about "grassroots." But if they show they don't actually care, only caring about the national team and pros, more organizations might stop listening to them.

Ridiculous statement 🙄

Changing to school year has nothing to do with grassroots and development.

You'd better explain to enlighten us, because most of the posts on here seem to think SY is beneficial for grassroots soccer.

First a league isn't grassroots soccer.
Especially an expensive league that filters out many.

Grassroots soccer is about young players in small clubs learning the game and developing.
ECNL is not that.

Whether BY or SY doesn't impact how and what kids learn for soccer.

Saying what most posts say in DCUM is hardly an argument for what's best for soccer.
People in here create a big deal about training shirts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ECNL making the change to school year makes absolute sense. They are a college tracked league so having all their players segmented based on what the College coaches want to evaluate on makes perfect sense. No more, highlighting who is a 2025 vs a 2026 grad on a brochure. Coaches can watch the game and evaluate everyone playing knowing they are in his/her recruiting target.

Stop will the nonsense debate about biobanding, emails or not, this change will come and it actually makes sense. All the chatter about MLS Next is nonsense because the largest percentage of kids will stop playing at the end of highschool, the next group are going to play in college, and a very small sliver will go pro. So why punish the majority of youth players in the hopes that .0000001% of the players being scouted by a pro team is in a league grouped by birth year.

Why should US Soccer and Colleges twist themselves in knots about what ECNL parents want when their primary pool of male players are in MLS Clubs and MLS Next?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this could also be the reason ECNL/US Club/USYS would tell US Soccer to f off if there was a passionate disagreement. US Soccer claims to be top dog on these decisions, and gives lip service to caring about "grassroots." But if they show they don't actually care, only caring about the national team and pros, more organizations might stop listening to them.

Ridiculous statement 🙄

Changing to school year has nothing to do with grassroots and development.

You'd better explain to enlighten us, because most of the posts on here seem to think SY is beneficial for grassroots soccer.

First a league isn't grassroots soccer.
Especially an expensive league that filters out many.

Grassroots soccer is about young players in small clubs learning the game and developing.
ECNL is not that.

Whether BY or SY doesn't impact how and what kids learn for soccer.

Saying what most posts say in DCUM is hardly an argument for what's best for soccer.
People in here create a big deal about training shirts

Sounds like you took issue with something that wasn't said. The point was not that ECNL is grassroots soccer. The point was that most believe SY is better for grassroots soccer, and US Soccer claims to care about grassroots soccer. Someone said why would they care about anything but MLS and MLS Next, because they are the most elite. If US Soccer shows that statement to be true - that they only care about the most elite - it opens the door for anyone slightly less elite, closer to grassroots soccer, especially with the support of the organizations below, to say US Soccer is no longer the boss for their space and that below it. US Soccer has to at least appear to be balancing everyone's interests. ECNL is itself closer to grassroots soccer than MLS and national teams. ECNL is also composed of clubs which have lower teams well into most people's definition of grassroots. So ECNL, and USYS, could claim they are the true champions of grassroots soccer. The point is that if US Soccer pushes the elitism in that prior comment too far, other organizations can decide to stop following their mandates.

[Anonymous]

The final decision will be made at USSF meeting in November.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ECNL making the change to school year makes absolute sense. They are a college tracked league so having all their players segmented based on what the College coaches want to evaluate on makes perfect sense. No more, highlighting who is a 2025 vs a 2026 grad on a brochure. Coaches can watch the game and evaluate everyone playing knowing they are in his/her recruiting target.

Stop will the nonsense debate about biobanding, emails or not, this change will come and it actually makes sense. All the chatter about MLS Next is nonsense because the largest percentage of kids will stop playing at the end of highschool, the next group are going to play in college, and a very small sliver will go pro. So why punish the majority of youth players in the hopes that .0000001% of the players being scouted by a pro team is in a league grouped by birth year.

Why should US Soccer and Colleges twist themselves in knots about what ECNL parents want when their primary pool of male players are in MLS Clubs and MLS Next?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this could also be the reason ECNL/US Club/USYS would tell US Soccer to f off if there was a passionate disagreement. US Soccer claims to be top dog on these decisions, and gives lip service to caring about "grassroots." But if they show they don't actually care, only caring about the national team and pros, more organizations might stop listening to them.

Ridiculous statement 🙄

Changing to school year has nothing to do with grassroots and development.

You'd better explain to enlighten us, because most of the posts on here seem to think SY is beneficial for grassroots soccer.

First a league isn't grassroots soccer.
Especially an expensive league that filters out many.

Grassroots soccer is about young players in small clubs learning the game and developing.
ECNL is not that.

Whether BY or SY doesn't impact how and what kids learn for soccer.

Saying what most posts say in DCUM is hardly an argument for what's best for soccer.
People in here create a big deal about training shirts

Sounds like you took issue with something that wasn't said. The point was not that ECNL is grassroots soccer. The point was that most believe SY is better for grassroots soccer, and US Soccer claims to care about grassroots soccer. Someone said why would they care about anything but MLS and MLS Next, because they are the most elite. If US Soccer shows that statement to be true - that they only care about the most elite - it opens the door for anyone slightly less elite, closer to grassroots soccer, especially with the support of the organizations below, to say US Soccer is no longer the boss for their space and that below it. US Soccer has to at least appear to be balancing everyone's interests. ECNL is itself closer to grassroots soccer than MLS and national teams. ECNL is also composed of clubs which have lower teams well into most people's definition of grassroots. So ECNL, and USYS, could claim they are the true champions of grassroots soccer. The point is that if US Soccer pushes the elitism in that prior comment too far, other organizations can decide to stop following their mandates.

Seems the for SY people are more about how it benefits ECNL without being able to articulate clearly how it benefits the players or US Soccer Youth Development

BY doesn't have a negative effect on development so don't see how SY fixes a non existent problem.
If people want a Rec League based on SY like basketball for example, then choose that.

EDP is closer to grassroots. Not ECNL btw

Grassroots flying all over the place for expensive tournaments, showcases and games? 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ECNL making the change to school year makes absolute sense. They are a college tracked league so having all their players segmented based on what the College coaches want to evaluate on makes perfect sense. No more, highlighting who is a 2025 vs a 2026 grad on a brochure. Coaches can watch the game and evaluate everyone playing knowing they are in his/her recruiting target.

Stop will the nonsense debate about biobanding, emails or not, this change will come and it actually makes sense. All the chatter about MLS Next is nonsense because the largest percentage of kids will stop playing at the end of highschool, the next group are going to play in college, and a very small sliver will go pro. So why punish the majority of youth players in the hopes that .0000001% of the players being scouted by a pro team is in a league grouped by birth year.

Why should US Soccer and Colleges twist themselves in knots about what ECNL parents want when their primary pool of male players are in MLS Clubs and MLS Next?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this could also be the reason ECNL/US Club/USYS would tell US Soccer to f off if there was a passionate disagreement. US Soccer claims to be top dog on these decisions, and gives lip service to caring about "grassroots." But if they show they don't actually care, only caring about the national team and pros, more organizations might stop listening to them.

Ridiculous statement 🙄

Changing to school year has nothing to do with grassroots and development.

You'd better explain to enlighten us, because most of the posts on here seem to think SY is beneficial for grassroots soccer.

First a league isn't grassroots soccer.
Especially an expensive league that filters out many.

Grassroots soccer is about young players in small clubs learning the game and developing.
ECNL is not that.

Whether BY or SY doesn't impact how and what kids learn for soccer.

Saying what most posts say in DCUM is hardly an argument for what's best for soccer.
People in here create a big deal about training shirts

Sounds like you took issue with something that wasn't said. The point was not that ECNL is grassroots soccer. The point was that most believe SY is better for grassroots soccer, and US Soccer claims to care about grassroots soccer. Someone said why would they care about anything but MLS and MLS Next, because they are the most elite. If US Soccer shows that statement to be true - that they only care about the most elite - it opens the door for anyone slightly less elite, closer to grassroots soccer, especially with the support of the organizations below, to say US Soccer is no longer the boss for their space and that below it. US Soccer has to at least appear to be balancing everyone's interests. ECNL is itself closer to grassroots soccer than MLS and national teams. ECNL is also composed of clubs which have lower teams well into most people's definition of grassroots. So ECNL, and USYS, could claim they are the true champions of grassroots soccer. The point is that if US Soccer pushes the elitism in that prior comment too far, other organizations can decide to stop following their mandates.

Seems the for SY people are more about how it benefits ECNL without being able to articulate clearly how it benefits the players or US Soccer Youth Development

BY doesn't have a negative effect on development so don't see how SY fixes a non existent problem.
If people want a Rec League based on SY like basketball for example, then choose that.

EDP is closer to grassroots. Not ECNL btw

Grassroots flying all over the place for expensive tournaments, showcases and games? 😂

SY is the best way to divide up kids for Us soccer. Kids at the entry level and lower level comp get to play with kids in their grade they don’t have to be at the same school. The data they talked about on the ECNL podcast said REI was better and had more kids represented at the higher levels when SY was in place.

When you look and ECNL girls teams that are primarily Q1/2 kids. With some from of Q3/4. That is a problem. I want to say it was 70% kids Q1/2 (girls). For college scouts it makes things easier for them not saying they can’t figure it out but it does make it easier.

The only reason people want birth year is if their kid is born Q1/2 and gets the REI advantage. Obviously people with kids born Q 3/4 want that same advantage. Because being older definitely matters all the data on pretty much every sport at the youth U17 level and below shows that.

I couldn’t care less what they decide to do. Keep it change it… But people saying we need to line up with the rest of the world or there no problems with birth year currently just is not true or US soccer wouldn’t be considering a change after only 7 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ECNL making the change to school year makes absolute sense. They are a college tracked league so having all their players segmented based on what the College coaches want to evaluate on makes perfect sense. No more, highlighting who is a 2025 vs a 2026 grad on a brochure. Coaches can watch the game and evaluate everyone playing knowing they are in his/her recruiting target.

Stop will the nonsense debate about biobanding, emails or not, this change will come and it actually makes sense. All the chatter about MLS Next is nonsense because the largest percentage of kids will stop playing at the end of highschool, the next group are going to play in college, and a very small sliver will go pro. So why punish the majority of youth players in the hopes that .0000001% of the players being scouted by a pro team is in a league grouped by birth year.

Why should US Soccer and Colleges twist themselves in knots about what ECNL parents want when their primary pool of male players are in MLS Clubs and MLS Next?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this could also be the reason ECNL/US Club/USYS would tell US Soccer to f off if there was a passionate disagreement. US Soccer claims to be top dog on these decisions, and gives lip service to caring about "grassroots." But if they show they don't actually care, only caring about the national team and pros, more organizations might stop listening to them.

Ridiculous statement 🙄

Changing to school year has nothing to do with grassroots and development.

You'd better explain to enlighten us, because most of the posts on here seem to think SY is beneficial for grassroots soccer.

First a league isn't grassroots soccer.
Especially an expensive league that filters out many.

Grassroots soccer is about young players in small clubs learning the game and developing.
ECNL is not that.

Whether BY or SY doesn't impact how and what kids learn for soccer.

Saying what most posts say in DCUM is hardly an argument for what's best for soccer.
People in here create a big deal about training shirts

Sounds like you took issue with something that wasn't said. The point was not that ECNL is grassroots soccer. The point was that most believe SY is better for grassroots soccer, and US Soccer claims to care about grassroots soccer. Someone said why would they care about anything but MLS and MLS Next, because they are the most elite. If US Soccer shows that statement to be true - that they only care about the most elite - it opens the door for anyone slightly less elite, closer to grassroots soccer, especially with the support of the organizations below, to say US Soccer is no longer the boss for their space and that below it. US Soccer has to at least appear to be balancing everyone's interests. ECNL is itself closer to grassroots soccer than MLS and national teams. ECNL is also composed of clubs which have lower teams well into most people's definition of grassroots. So ECNL, and USYS, could claim they are the true champions of grassroots soccer. The point is that if US Soccer pushes the elitism in that prior comment too far, other organizations can decide to stop following their mandates.

Seems the for SY people are more about how it benefits ECNL without being able to articulate clearly how it benefits the players or US Soccer Youth Development

BY doesn't have a negative effect on development so don't see how SY fixes a non existent problem.
If people want a Rec League based on SY like basketball for example, then choose that.

EDP is closer to grassroots. Not ECNL btw

Grassroots flying all over the place for expensive tournaments, showcases and games? 😂

SY is the best way to divide up kids for Us soccer. Kids at the entry level and lower level comp get to play with kids in their grade they don’t have to be at the same school. The data they talked about on the ECNL podcast said REI was better and had more kids represented at the higher levels when SY was in place.

When you look and ECNL girls teams that are primarily Q1/2 kids. With some from of Q3/4. That is a problem. I want to say it was 70% kids Q1/2 (girls). For college scouts it makes things easier for them not saying they can’t figure it out but it does make it easier.

The only reason people want birth year is if their kid is born Q1/2 and gets the REI advantage. Obviously people with kids born Q 3/4 want that same advantage. Because being older definitely matters all the data on pretty much every sport at the youth U17 level and below shows that.

I couldn’t care less what they decide to do. Keep it change it… But people saying we need to line up with the rest of the world or there no problems with birth year currently just is not true or US soccer wouldn’t be considering a change after only 7 years.

Does SY eliminate kids being born in Q3 and Q4?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ECNL making the change to school year makes absolute sense. They are a college tracked league so having all their players segmented based on what the College coaches want to evaluate on makes perfect sense. No more, highlighting who is a 2025 vs a 2026 grad on a brochure. Coaches can watch the game and evaluate everyone playing knowing they are in his/her recruiting target.

Stop will the nonsense debate about biobanding, emails or not, this change will come and it actually makes sense. All the chatter about MLS Next is nonsense because the largest percentage of kids will stop playing at the end of highschool, the next group are going to play in college, and a very small sliver will go pro. So why punish the majority of youth players in the hopes that .0000001% of the players being scouted by a pro team is in a league grouped by birth year.

Why should US Soccer and Colleges twist themselves in knots about what ECNL parents want when their primary pool of male players are in MLS Clubs and MLS Next?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this could also be the reason ECNL/US Club/USYS would tell US Soccer to f off if there was a passionate disagreement. US Soccer claims to be top dog on these decisions, and gives lip service to caring about "grassroots." But if they show they don't actually care, only caring about the national team and pros, more organizations might stop listening to them.

Ridiculous statement 🙄

Changing to school year has nothing to do with grassroots and development.

You'd better explain to enlighten us, because most of the posts on here seem to think SY is beneficial for grassroots soccer.

First a league isn't grassroots soccer.
Especially an expensive league that filters out many.

Grassroots soccer is about young players in small clubs learning the game and developing.
ECNL is not that.

Whether BY or SY doesn't impact how and what kids learn for soccer.

Saying what most posts say in DCUM is hardly an argument for what's best for soccer.
People in here create a big deal about training shirts

Sounds like you took issue with something that wasn't said. The point was not that ECNL is grassroots soccer. The point was that most believe SY is better for grassroots soccer, and US Soccer claims to care about grassroots soccer. Someone said why would they care about anything but MLS and MLS Next, because they are the most elite. If US Soccer shows that statement to be true - that they only care about the most elite - it opens the door for anyone slightly less elite, closer to grassroots soccer, especially with the support of the organizations below, to say US Soccer is no longer the boss for their space and that below it. US Soccer has to at least appear to be balancing everyone's interests. ECNL is itself closer to grassroots soccer than MLS and national teams. ECNL is also composed of clubs which have lower teams well into most people's definition of grassroots. So ECNL, and USYS, could claim they are the true champions of grassroots soccer. The point is that if US Soccer pushes the elitism in that prior comment too far, other organizations can decide to stop following their mandates.

Seems the for SY people are more about how it benefits ECNL without being able to articulate clearly how it benefits the players or US Soccer Youth Development

BY doesn't have a negative effect on development so don't see how SY fixes a non existent problem.
If people want a Rec League based on SY like basketball for example, then choose that.

EDP is closer to grassroots. Not ECNL btw

Grassroots flying all over the place for expensive tournaments, showcases and games? 😂

SY is the best way to divide up kids for Us soccer. Kids at the entry level and lower level comp get to play with kids in their grade they don’t have to be at the same school. The data they talked about on the ECNL podcast said REI was better and had more kids represented at the higher levels when SY was in place.

When you look and ECNL girls teams that are primarily Q1/2 kids. With some from of Q3/4. That is a problem. I want to say it was 70% kids Q1/2 (girls). For college scouts it makes things easier for them not saying they can’t figure it out but it does make it easier.

The only reason people want birth year is if their kid is born Q1/2 and gets the REI advantage. Obviously people with kids born Q 3/4 want that same advantage. Because being older definitely matters all the data on pretty much every sport at the youth U17 level and below shows that.

I couldn’t care less what they decide to do. Keep it change it… But people saying we need to line up with the rest of the world or there no problems with birth year currently just is not true or US soccer wouldn’t be considering a change after only 7 years.

Does SY eliminate kids being born in Q3 and Q4?

I don’t think anything I said would agree with that? Just would have a different group of kids fall under Q3/4 but at least they would be in the same school grade. If your kid benefits from BY which is fine. Just say that don’t pretend like there isn’t an issue with it outside of your own perception.

Like I said if they decide to not switch back I’ll lose 0 sleep over it. You’re obviously panicking that your kid might lose the one thing they have. Eventually the groups rejoin at U19 hopefully it doesn’t effect your kid at that point either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The final decision will be made at USSF meeting in November.

False.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ECNL making the change to school year makes absolute sense. They are a college tracked league so having all their players segmented based on what the College coaches want to evaluate on makes perfect sense. No more, highlighting who is a 2025 vs a 2026 grad on a brochure. Coaches can watch the game and evaluate everyone playing knowing they are in his/her recruiting target.

Stop will the nonsense debate about biobanding, emails or not, this change will come and it actually makes sense. All the chatter about MLS Next is nonsense because the largest percentage of kids will stop playing at the end of highschool, the next group are going to play in college, and a very small sliver will go pro. So why punish the majority of youth players in the hopes that .0000001% of the players being scouted by a pro team is in a league grouped by birth year.

Why should US Soccer and Colleges twist themselves in knots about what ECNL parents want when their primary pool of male players are in MLS Clubs and MLS Next?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this could also be the reason ECNL/US Club/USYS would tell US Soccer to f off if there was a passionate disagreement. US Soccer claims to be top dog on these decisions, and gives lip service to caring about "grassroots." But if they show they don't actually care, only caring about the national team and pros, more organizations might stop listening to them.

Ridiculous statement 🙄

Changing to school year has nothing to do with grassroots and development.

You'd better explain to enlighten us, because most of the posts on here seem to think SY is beneficial for grassroots soccer.

First a league isn't grassroots soccer.
Especially an expensive league that filters out many.

Grassroots soccer is about young players in small clubs learning the game and developing.
ECNL is not that.

Whether BY or SY doesn't impact how and what kids learn for soccer.

Saying what most posts say in DCUM is hardly an argument for what's best for soccer.
People in here create a big deal about training shirts

Sounds like you took issue with something that wasn't said. The point was not that ECNL is grassroots soccer. The point was that most believe SY is better for grassroots soccer, and US Soccer claims to care about grassroots soccer. Someone said why would they care about anything but MLS and MLS Next, because they are the most elite. If US Soccer shows that statement to be true - that they only care about the most elite - it opens the door for anyone slightly less elite, closer to grassroots soccer, especially with the support of the organizations below, to say US Soccer is no longer the boss for their space and that below it. US Soccer has to at least appear to be balancing everyone's interests. ECNL is itself closer to grassroots soccer than MLS and national teams. ECNL is also composed of clubs which have lower teams well into most people's definition of grassroots. So ECNL, and USYS, could claim they are the true champions of grassroots soccer. The point is that if US Soccer pushes the elitism in that prior comment too far, other organizations can decide to stop following their mandates.

Seems the for SY people are more about how it benefits ECNL without being able to articulate clearly how it benefits the players or US Soccer Youth Development

BY doesn't have a negative effect on development so don't see how SY fixes a non existent problem.
If people want a Rec League based on SY like basketball for example, then choose that.

EDP is closer to grassroots. Not ECNL btw

Grassroots flying all over the place for expensive tournaments, showcases and games? 😂

SY is the best way to divide up kids for Us soccer. Kids at the entry level and lower level comp get to play with kids in their grade they don’t have to be at the same school. The data they talked about on the ECNL podcast said REI was better and had more kids represented at the higher levels when SY was in place.

When you look and ECNL girls teams that are primarily Q1/2 kids. With some from of Q3/4. That is a problem. I want to say it was 70% kids Q1/2 (girls). For college scouts it makes things easier for them not saying they can’t figure it out but it does make it easier.

The only reason people want birth year is if their kid is born Q1/2 and gets the REI advantage. Obviously people with kids born Q 3/4 want that same advantage. Because being older definitely matters all the data on pretty much every sport at the youth U17 level and below shows that.

I couldn’t care less what they decide to do. Keep it change it… But people saying we need to line up with the rest of the world or there no problems with birth year currently just is not true or US soccer wouldn’t be considering a change after only 7 years.

You missed the first 35 pages of this thread clearly. RAE is just a window, if you move the age, brackets, you shift the window. There is always an early birthdate and a late birthdate.

SY or BY Don’t do anything to alleviate RAE, Better talent ID, better football analytics do, Better, coaching, pedigrees, and deeper coaching knowledge does, bio banding can in some instances, but that is not a salve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The final decision will be made at USSF meeting in November.

False.

So October it is then.