ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need some inside info!!
Someone has had to heard something by now that the ECNL/US Club is going to do!
Spill the beans

Since you haven't figured it out ECNL has realized that their astroturf campaign isn't working.

US Soccer is allowing leagues to do whatever they want in 2026. Different leagues will need to all negotiate with each other if want to have the same rules.

I highly doubt different leagues will be able to work together. Which is why ECNL wanted US Soccer to mandate some kind of change.

Birth year mandate was removed. If ECNL was the leader in removing it, their efforts worked, they won.

There's no win, your spiritual leader Christian Lavars even said that he questions US Soccer's ability to mandate BY in one of his podcasts. What he meant by this is ECNL could easily adopt rules that essentially make their league SY even within a BY context.

Think of this a different way. If Ford Chevy Toyota etc all had to make a single decision about how they sell cars and everyone would agree to sell cars that way from then on would they be able to?

The answer is no. This is why ECNL and US Club wanted US Soccer to mandate SY. US Soccer saw through what they were trying to do and put it on leagues themselves to agree on the rules. (Knowing that they all hate each other and can't agree on anything)

Got it, so US Soccer is completely inept as a governing body. What a petty, cut off your nose to spite your face response if that was actually their thought process.

Sorry if you didn't get the response you wanted. However this is how the game is played. ECNL thought they could stand behind US Culb and use astroturfing campaigns and parents to pressure US Soccer. US Soccer represents much more than youth girls competitive interests.

Parents never seem to figure out that Soccer leadership knows that within 3-5 years most of the most vocal critics, proponents, whatever will filter away and a new crop of critics and proponents will replace them. There is no need to make quick changes on anything.

You are the same guy in every thread, astroturfing...ECNL is US Club. Who is the soccer leadership? are they the same as the deep state?

Why can't you just stick to the facts and not try to spin them into something they aren't.

ECNL USYS and AYSO seem to agree to SY that's fine. There's all kinds of other leagues that haven't relayed their position.

US Soccer has stated everyone is free to do what works best for them in 2026.

Those 3 make up about 90% of all US soccer registrants, that is a fact. MLSN does not have a feeder system, they rely on all of the other youth orgs to populate their league. They are on an island if they truly are the holdouts to this change.

No academy leagues have a feeder system? ECNL is in the same boat.
The feeder system is the clubs not any leagues. So MLSN might tell their clubs they want boys to stay BY for U12 and under.

US Club can mandate this is what we want but will directors risk getting kicked out of MLSN to make us club happy? I doubt it.

People saying they need to change quick are not thinking about the clubs being against separate systems or not wanting to change at all.

ECNL is fed by the US Club system for the most part. I am not sure about every region, but our ECNL clubs are aligned with our state premier league which is governed by....US Club. MLSN isn't even in every city or every state, but ECNL likely is in some form and definitely US Club. I am not sure how you take MLSN lack of communication as a full stop opposition to SY but I can't make that leap with you.

I was told by a SOCAL board member the reason SY mandate was not going to be put in place is becuase MLS/MLSN opposed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need some inside info!!
Someone has had to heard something by now that the ECNL/US Club is going to do!
Spill the beans

Since you haven't figured it out ECNL has realized that their astroturf campaign isn't working.

US Soccer is allowing leagues to do whatever they want in 2026. Different leagues will need to all negotiate with each other if want to have the same rules.

I highly doubt different leagues will be able to work together. Which is why ECNL wanted US Soccer to mandate some kind of change.

Birth year mandate was removed. If ECNL was the leader in removing it, their efforts worked, they won.

There's no win, your spiritual leader Christian Lavars even said that he questions US Soccer's ability to mandate BY in one of his podcasts. What he meant by this is ECNL could easily adopt rules that essentially make their league SY even within a BY context.

Think of this a different way. If Ford Chevy Toyota etc all had to make a single decision about how they sell cars and everyone would agree to sell cars that way from then on would they be able to?

The answer is no. This is why ECNL and US Club wanted US Soccer to mandate SY. US Soccer saw through what they were trying to do and put it on leagues themselves to agree on the rules. (Knowing that they all hate each other and can't agree on anything)

Got it, so US Soccer is completely inept as a governing body. What a petty, cut off your nose to spite your face response if that was actually their thought process.

Sorry if you didn't get the response you wanted. However this is how the game is played. ECNL thought they could stand behind US Culb and use astroturfing campaigns and parents to pressure US Soccer. US Soccer represents much more than youth girls competitive interests.

Parents never seem to figure out that Soccer leadership knows that within 3-5 years most of the most vocal critics, proponents, whatever will filter away and a new crop of critics and proponents will replace them. There is no need to make quick changes on anything.

You are the same guy in every thread, astroturfing...ECNL is US Club. Who is the soccer leadership? are they the same as the deep state?

Why can't you just stick to the facts and not try to spin them into something they aren't.

ECNL USYS and AYSO seem to agree to SY that's fine. There's all kinds of other leagues that haven't relayed their position.

US Soccer has stated everyone is free to do what works best for them in 2026.

Those 3 make up about 90% of all US soccer registrants, that is a fact. MLSN does not have a feeder system, they rely on all of the other youth orgs to populate their league. They are on an island if they truly are the holdouts to this change.

No academy leagues have a feeder system? ECNL is in the same boat.
The feeder system is the clubs not any leagues. So MLSN might tell their clubs they want boys to stay BY for U12 and under.

US Club can mandate this is what we want but will directors risk getting kicked out of MLSN to make us club happy? I doubt it.

People saying they need to change quick are not thinking about the clubs being against separate systems or not wanting to change at all.

ECNL is fed by the US Club system for the most part. I am not sure about every region, but our ECNL clubs are aligned with our state premier league which is governed by....US Club. MLSN isn't even in every city or every state, but ECNL likely is in some form and definitely US Club. I am not sure how you take MLSN lack of communication as a full stop opposition to SY but I can't make that leap with you.

I was told by a SOCAL board member the reason SY mandate was not going to be put in place is becuase MLS/MLSN opposed it.

Oh! Well that settles that then

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we are going to see a great divide and change in the landscape as a whole. ECNL is already talking to clubs with either MLSN boys saying join us and we will let your girls in. Trying to pull some mid tier MLSN teams and let the girls join ECNL from RL or GA.

I’d be willing to bet we will see MLSN and ECNL start adding pre whatever for U11/12 and start their own feeder systems.

In San Diego, I can see Albion and City would like to join ECNL. This will be a huge blow to GA in the southwestern conference.

Both of these clubs have MLS Next on the boys side and GA on the girls side.

Nobody is going to give up MLSN for ECNL on the boys side.

ECNL will only offer these clubs girls ECNL if they drop MLSN and do ECNL for both boys and girls.

See how there's an impasse? SY might force all the MLSN + GA leagues to create their own BY feeder rec leagues.

You are just making stuff up, a lot of the bigger clubs have MLSN and ECNL teams, there isn't a conflict there. MLS Academy teams are the top destination on the boys side where this debate does not matter and they are choosing their pool from both leagues. I know you want MLSN to be the night in shining armor in your made up scenario but they really don't have a dog in this fight.

Nope, absolutely wrong.

Most of the clubs that have MLSN and ECNL girls either were preexisting or came over right after DA blew up.

Now ECNL tries to use ECNL girls to force clubs into dropping MLSN and doing ECNL for both boys and girls. This is one of the major reasons GA exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we are going to see a great divide and change in the landscape as a whole. ECNL is already talking to clubs with either MLSN boys saying join us and we will let your girls in. Trying to pull some mid tier MLSN teams and let the girls join ECNL from RL or GA.

I’d be willing to bet we will see MLSN and ECNL start adding pre whatever for U11/12 and start their own feeder systems.

In San Diego, I can see Albion and City would like to join ECNL. This will be a huge blow to GA in the southwestern conference.

Both of these clubs have MLS Next on the boys side and GA on the girls side.

Nobody is going to give up MLSN for ECNL on the boys side.

ECNL will only offer these clubs girls ECNL if they drop MLSN and do ECNL for both boys and girls.

See how there's an impasse? SY might force all the MLSN + GA leagues to create their own BY feeder rec leagues.

You are just making stuff up, a lot of the bigger clubs have MLSN and ECNL teams, there isn't a conflict there. MLS Academy teams are the top destination on the boys side where this debate does not matter and they are choosing their pool from both leagues. I know you want MLSN to be the night in shining armor in your made up scenario but they really don't have a dog in this fight.

Nope, absolutely wrong.

Most of the clubs that have MLSN and ECNL girls either were preexisting or came over right after DA blew up.

Now ECNL tries to use ECNL girls to force clubs into dropping MLSN and doing ECNL for both boys and girls. This is one of the major reasons GA exists.

What am I wrong about? You just confirmed that some clubs have MLSN and ECNL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we are going to see a great divide and change in the landscape as a whole. ECNL is already talking to clubs with either MLSN boys saying join us and we will let your girls in. Trying to pull some mid tier MLSN teams and let the girls join ECNL from RL or GA.

I’d be willing to bet we will see MLSN and ECNL start adding pre whatever for U11/12 and start their own feeder systems.

In San Diego, I can see Albion and City would like to join ECNL. This will be a huge blow to GA in the southwestern conference.

Both of these clubs have MLS Next on the boys side and GA on the girls side.

Nobody is going to give up MLSN for ECNL on the boys side.

ECNL will only offer these clubs girls ECNL if they drop MLSN and do ECNL for both boys and girls.

See how there's an impasse? SY might force all the MLSN + GA leagues to create their own BY feeder rec leagues.

You are just making stuff up, a lot of the bigger clubs have MLSN and ECNL teams, there isn't a conflict there. MLS Academy teams are the top destination on the boys side where this debate does not matter and they are choosing their pool from both leagues. I know you want MLSN to be the night in shining armor in your made up scenario but they really don't have a dog in this fight.

What a stupid idiot. Name some big clubs with both MLSN and girl ECNL. You can not even count with one hand. I am very sure Albion or City wants to join ECNL, but get denied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we are going to see a great divide and change in the landscape as a whole. ECNL is already talking to clubs with either MLSN boys saying join us and we will let your girls in. Trying to pull some mid tier MLSN teams and let the girls join ECNL from RL or GA.

I’d be willing to bet we will see MLSN and ECNL start adding pre whatever for U11/12 and start their own feeder systems.

In San Diego, I can see Albion and City would like to join ECNL. This will be a huge blow to GA in the southwestern conference.

Both of these clubs have MLS Next on the boys side and GA on the girls side.

Nobody is going to give up MLSN for ECNL on the boys side.

ECNL will only offer these clubs girls ECNL if they drop MLSN and do ECNL for both boys and girls.

See how there's an impasse? SY might force all the MLSN + GA leagues to create their own BY feeder rec leagues.

You are just making stuff up, a lot of the bigger clubs have MLSN and ECNL teams, there isn't a conflict there. MLS Academy teams are the top destination on the boys side where this debate does not matter and they are choosing their pool from both leagues. I know you want MLSN to be the night in shining armor in your made up scenario but they really don't have a dog in this fight.

Nope, absolutely wrong.

Most of the clubs that have MLSN and ECNL girls either were preexisting or came over right after DA blew up.

Now ECNL tries to use ECNL girls to force clubs into dropping MLSN and doing ECNL for both boys and girls. This is one of the major reasons GA exists.

What am I wrong about? You just confirmed that some clubs have MLSN and ECNL.

Try do do MLSN and ECNL girls now.

It's not possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we are going to see a great divide and change in the landscape as a whole. ECNL is already talking to clubs with either MLSN boys saying join us and we will let your girls in. Trying to pull some mid tier MLSN teams and let the girls join ECNL from RL or GA.

I’d be willing to bet we will see MLSN and ECNL start adding pre whatever for U11/12 and start their own feeder systems.

In San Diego, I can see Albion and City would like to join ECNL. This will be a huge blow to GA in the southwestern conference.

Both of these clubs have MLS Next on the boys side and GA on the girls side.

Nobody is going to give up MLSN for ECNL on the boys side.

ECNL will only offer these clubs girls ECNL if they drop MLSN and do ECNL for both boys and girls.

See how there's an impasse? SY might force all the MLSN + GA leagues to create their own BY feeder rec leagues.

You are just making stuff up, a lot of the bigger clubs have MLSN and ECNL teams, there isn't a conflict there. MLS Academy teams are the top destination on the boys side where this debate does not matter and they are choosing their pool from both leagues. I know you want MLSN to be the night in shining armor in your made up scenario but they really don't have a dog in this fight.

Nope, absolutely wrong.

Most of the clubs that have MLSN and ECNL girls either were preexisting or came over right after DA blew up.

Now ECNL tries to use ECNL girls to force clubs into dropping MLSN and doing ECNL for both boys and girls. This is one of the major reasons GA exists.

Doesn't bethesda have this set-up with MLSN and ECNL Girls?

[Anonymous]

Most of the big clubs have MLSNext and ECNL (already on the boys side) take Dallas FC or Tampa Bay as obvious examples.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most of the big clubs have MLSNext and ECNL (already on the boys side) take Dallas FC or Tampa Bay as obvious examples.

You only name two, idiot. That is not "Most". You can not even name 10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we are going to see a great divide and change in the landscape as a whole. ECNL is already talking to clubs with either MLSN boys saying join us and we will let your girls in. Trying to pull some mid tier MLSN teams and let the girls join ECNL from RL or GA.

I’d be willing to bet we will see MLSN and ECNL start adding pre whatever for U11/12 and start their own feeder systems.

In San Diego, I can see Albion and City would like to join ECNL. This will be a huge blow to GA in the southwestern conference.

Both of these clubs have MLS Next on the boys side and GA on the girls side.

Nobody is going to give up MLSN for ECNL on the boys side.

ECNL will only offer these clubs girls ECNL if they drop MLSN and do ECNL for both boys and girls.

See how there's an impasse? SY might force all the MLSN + GA leagues to create their own BY feeder rec leagues.

You are just making stuff up, a lot of the bigger clubs have MLSN and ECNL teams, there isn't a conflict there. MLS Academy teams are the top destination on the boys side where this debate does not matter and they are choosing their pool from both leagues. I know you want MLSN to be the night in shining armor in your made up scenario but they really don't have a dog in this fight.

What a stupid idiot. Name some big clubs with both MLSN and girl ECNL. You can not even count with one hand. I am very sure Albion or City wants to join ECNL, but get denied.

This discussion is not limited to whatever area you are from. As others have said after me, there are plenty of huge clubs that have both. Nobody appreciates your ad hominem attacks, especially when you have no clue what you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we are going to see a great divide and change in the landscape as a whole. ECNL is already talking to clubs with either MLSN boys saying join us and we will let your girls in. Trying to pull some mid tier MLSN teams and let the girls join ECNL from RL or GA.

I’d be willing to bet we will see MLSN and ECNL start adding pre whatever for U11/12 and start their own feeder systems.

In San Diego, I can see Albion and City would like to join ECNL. This will be a huge blow to GA in the southwestern conference.

Both of these clubs have MLS Next on the boys side and GA on the girls side.

Nobody is going to give up MLSN for ECNL on the boys side.

ECNL will only offer these clubs girls ECNL if they drop MLSN and do ECNL for both boys and girls.

See how there's an impasse? SY might force all the MLSN + GA leagues to create their own BY feeder rec leagues.

You are just making stuff up, a lot of the bigger clubs have MLSN and ECNL teams, there isn't a conflict there. MLS Academy teams are the top destination on the boys side where this debate does not matter and they are choosing their pool from both leagues. I know you want MLSN to be the night in shining armor in your made up scenario but they really don't have a dog in this fight.

Nope, absolutely wrong.

Most of the clubs that have MLSN and ECNL girls either were preexisting or came over right after DA blew up.

Now ECNL tries to use ECNL girls to force clubs into dropping MLSN and doing ECNL for both boys and girls. This is one of the major reasons GA exists.

This is 100% true and I agree that this is why many GA clubs exist.

ECNL is trying to wait the big GA clubs with MLSN out. I don't know if it will be successful. MLSN seems pretty happy with its league as is. If they wanted to MLSN could be much more aggressive in the boys space going after top ECNL teams. The problem with this is if a club dropped boys ECNL in favor of MLSN ECNL would likely take girls ECNL away.

[Anonymous]

Our midwest club has MLSN and ECNL boys and ECNL girls.

Who in the world thinking these clubs don't exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our midwest club has MLSN and ECNL boys and ECNL girls.

Who in the world thinking these clubs don't exist.

Which club?

Is ECNL boys where you put your 2nd teams after MLSN?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most of the big clubs have MLSNext and ECNL (already on the boys side) take Dallas FC or Tampa Bay as obvious examples.

Without name calling --- almost all do not have this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our midwest club has MLSN and ECNL boys and ECNL girls.

Who in the world thinking these clubs don't exist.

There are some. There will not be more. The ones that exist are under some pressure to be ECNL only. They can fend off for now.