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:

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.

So if there will always be Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 regardless of SY or BY and the rest of the world (including us) uses BY and Colleges have been recruiting with BY for years because they know who they want and when they're leaving HS, there is no soccer value to changing to SY.
Only a social value for some.

The rest of the work does not use birth year. One example is England. Also many countries in Europe (almost all) offer bio banding up to U17.

If there will always be REI why not just eliminate trap players and add in the social part with soccer? Makes academy better to have kids compete with kids from same year. Also makes the grass root level better because kids can play with their friends. Nothing but upside by going to SY. Other than parents being upset their kid loses the I’m older advantage.

Which is understandable. I’m sure Aug to Dec parents felt the same way in 2017.

You are obviously not a soccer person.
Kind of a waste of time to engage.

"grassroots better" because little Chad can play with Timmy from the same private school 🤣

[Anonymous]

If this change is implemented in all youth soccer except MLS next, won't it all but eliminate late calender year birthdays from MLSN?

These kids would be playing their grade level to U11, then have to skip U12 so they can play U13 with MLSN. This doesn't seem practical and would seem to filter nearly all of them to ECNL.

This doesn't really negatively affect girls as ECNL by and large has the most competitive leagues. But it would sure put boys in this category at a big disadvantage as they would likely be age trapped into ECNL over MLSN.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If this change is implemented in all youth soccer except MLS next, won't it all but eliminate late calender year birthdays from MLSN?

These kids would be playing their grade level to U11, then have to skip U12 so they can play U13 with MLSN. This doesn't seem practical and would seem to filter nearly all of them to ECNL.

This doesn't really negatively affect girls as ECNL by and large has the most competitive leagues. But it would sure put boys in this category at a big disadvantage as they would likely be age trapped into ECNL over MLSN.

Your ignoring that the boys can always play up if they are capable and want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this change is implemented in all youth soccer except MLS next, won't it all but eliminate late calender year birthdays from MLSN?

These kids would be playing their grade level to U11, then have to skip U12 so they can play U13 with MLSN. This doesn't seem practical and would seem to filter nearly all of them to ECNL.

This doesn't really negatively affect girls as ECNL by and large has the most competitive leagues. But it would sure put boys in this category at a big disadvantage as they would likely be age trapped into ECNL over MLSN.

Your ignoring that the boys can always play up if they are capable and want to.

And if there is a roster spot. 😂

I’m a huge fan of playing up when appropriate. My DC plays up. But the reality is, for the most competitive teams, there aren’t many spots for that.

Got to classic or NPL / DPL and play up 4 age groups if you want to. But in ECNL there just isn’t much roster space. Maybe a couple of seats per club, not even per age group.

[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: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.

So if there will always be Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 regardless of SY or BY and the rest of the world (including us) uses BY and Colleges have been recruiting with BY for years because they know who they want and when they're leaving HS, there is no soccer value to changing to SY.
Only a social value for some.

The rest of the work does not use birth year. One example is England. Also many countries in Europe (almost all) offer bio banding up to U17.

If there will always be REI why not just eliminate trap players and add in the social part with soccer? Makes academy better to have kids compete with kids from same year. Also makes the grass root level better because kids can play with their friends. Nothing but upside by going to SY. Other than parents being upset their kid loses the I’m older advantage.

Which is understandable. I’m sure Aug to Dec parents felt the same way in 2017.

You are obviously not a soccer person.
Kind of a waste of time to engage.

"grassroots better" because little Chad can play with Timmy from the same private school 🤣

You’re an idiot. Obviously England thinks it’s a good idea for a reason. Also you assume other countries are Aug to June school year many of them are not and the BY calendar for soccer isn’t as big of a change for them athletically and scholastically. If you want your kid to stay the oldest that’s fine but don’t say anything other than that.

[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: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.

So if there will always be Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 regardless of SY or BY and the rest of the world (including us) uses BY and Colleges have been recruiting with BY for years because they know who they want and when they're leaving HS, there is no soccer value to changing to SY.
Only a social value for some.

The rest of the work does not use birth year. One example is England. Also many countries in Europe (almost all) offer bio banding up to U17.

If there will always be REI why not just eliminate trap players and add in the social part with soccer? Makes academy better to have kids compete with kids from same year. Also makes the grass root level better because kids can play with their friends. Nothing but upside by going to SY. Other than parents being upset their kid loses the I’m older advantage.

Which is understandable. I’m sure Aug to Dec parents felt the same way in 2017.

You are obviously not a soccer person.
Kind of a waste of time to engage.

"grassroots better" because little Chad can play with Timmy from the same private school 🤣

People like you are what’s wrong with soccer only thinking inwards rather than what’s best for the majority. More kids playing means more kids with the opportunity to be future Olympic, national, college, high school, etc. We want as many kids enjoying and participating in soccer as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the screenshot from Socal, the change in ECNL is a done deal. They just need to coordinate with the governing body on how to proceed. This will make ECNL a more exclusive league and help college recruiting be smoother. GA either has to follow suit or lose players.

This is a lie.

The unsubstantiated screenshot, if taken at face value explicitly says it isn’t a done deal.

Sorry, but the intention is very clear. The change is coming from ECNL, one way or another.

US Club soccer and USSF will decide in November what will happen. As of now it’s still a possibility. But needs to be finalized. From what I understand this would be all leagues not just ECNL.

The rumor mill started with “ECNL director says BY for fall 2025”

Once that was pointed out that it had to come from USCS, it’s morphed into “all other leagues via USSF”

MLSN is not going to change. The pro leagues, World Cup, etc are the big deciding priorities for USSF.

The meetings are public…this is not a thing. It wasn’t discussed in May, and it’s not on the November agenda for “finalization.”

This is the text I received tonight from someone at ECNL.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So if there will always be Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 regardless of SY or BY and the rest of the world (including us) uses BY and Colleges have been recruiting with BY for years because they know who they want and when they're leaving HS, there is no soccer value to changing to SY.
Only a social value for some.

The rest of the work does not use birth year. One example is England. Also many countries in Europe (almost all) offer bio banding up to U17.

If there will always be REI why not just eliminate trap players and add in the social part with soccer? Makes academy better to have kids compete with kids from same year. Also makes the grass root level better because kids can play with their friends. Nothing but upside by going to SY. Other than parents being upset their kid loses the I’m older advantage.

Which is understandable. I’m sure Aug to Dec parents felt the same way in 2017.

You are obviously not a soccer person.
Kind of a waste of time to engage.

"grassroots better" because little Chad can play with Timmy from the same private school 🤣

You’re an idiot. Obviously England thinks it’s a good idea for a reason. Also you assume other countries are Aug to June school year many of them are not and the BY calendar for soccer isn’t as big of a change for them athletically and scholastically. If you want your kid to stay the oldest that’s fine but don’t say anything other than that.

In England they do school year, except for the Academies and International competition and only up to U18's

btw, England hasn't won a major tournament since 1966 🤔
(that's not who we want to follow)

[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: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.

So if there will always be Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 regardless of SY or BY and the rest of the world (including us) uses BY and Colleges have been recruiting with BY for years because they know who they want and when they're leaving HS, there is no soccer value to changing to SY.
Only a social value for some.

The rest of the work does not use birth year. One example is England. Also many countries in Europe (almost all) offer bio banding up to U17.

If there will always be REI why not just eliminate trap players and add in the social part with soccer? Makes academy better to have kids compete with kids from same year. Also makes the grass root level better because kids can play with their friends. Nothing but upside by going to SY. Other than parents being upset their kid loses the I’m older advantage.

Which is understandable. I’m sure Aug to Dec parents felt the same way in 2017.

You are obviously not a soccer person.
Kind of a waste of time to engage.

"grassroots better" because little Chad can play with Timmy from the same private school 🤣

People like you are what’s wrong with soccer only thinking inwards rather than what’s best for the majority. More kids playing means more kids with the opportunity to be future Olympic, national, college, high school, etc. We want as many kids enjoying and participating in soccer as possible.

Playdate kids who only want to play because the kid they share a lunch table with is playing isn’t going to any high levels.

Soccer levels isn’t dropping, unless you have verifiable data to prove otherwise.

If Q4 kids aren't participating because of BY then Q4 kids won't participate either with 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: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.

So if there will always be Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 regardless of SY or BY and the rest of the world (including us) uses BY and Colleges have been recruiting with BY for years because they know who they want and when they're leaving HS, there is no soccer value to changing to SY.
Only a social value for some.

The rest of the work does not use birth year. One example is England. Also many countries in Europe (almost all) offer bio banding up to U17.

If there will always be REI why not just eliminate trap players and add in the social part with soccer? Makes academy better to have kids compete with kids from same year. Also makes the grass root level better because kids can play with their friends. Nothing but upside by going to SY. Other than parents being upset their kid loses the I’m older advantage.

Which is understandable. I’m sure Aug to Dec parents felt the same way in 2017.

You are obviously not a soccer person.
Kind of a waste of time to engage.

"grassroots better" because little Chad can play with Timmy from the same private school 🤣

You’re an idiot. Obviously England thinks it’s a good idea for a reason. Also you assume other countries are Aug to June school year many of them are not and the BY calendar for soccer isn’t as big of a change for them athletically and scholastically. If you want your kid to stay the oldest that’s fine but don’t say anything other than that.

In England they do school year, except for the Academies and International competition and only up to U18's

btw, England hasn't won a major tournament since 1966 🤔
(that's not who we want to follow)

We haven’t been any closer. Maybe we shouldn’t have a system that discriminates and discourages half the kids from the beginning. Especially in a place like the US where it’s money 1st soccer 2nd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If this change is implemented in all youth soccer except MLS next, won't it all but eliminate late calender year birthdays from MLSN?

These kids would be playing their grade level to U11, then have to skip U12 so they can play U13 with MLSN. This doesn't seem practical and would seem to filter nearly all of them to ECNL.

This doesn't really negatively affect girls as ECNL by and large has the most competitive leagues. But it would sure put boys in this category at a big disadvantage as they would likely be age trapped into ECNL over MLSN.

When did ECNL become all youth soccer outside MLS Next?

Why would late calendar month players good enough for MLS Next step down to play ECNL and a year down at that?

[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: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.

So if there will always be Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 regardless of SY or BY and the rest of the world (including us) uses BY and Colleges have been recruiting with BY for years because they know who they want and when they're leaving HS, there is no soccer value to changing to SY.
Only a social value for some.

The rest of the work does not use birth year. One example is England. Also many countries in Europe (almost all) offer bio banding up to U17.

If there will always be REI why not just eliminate trap players and add in the social part with soccer? Makes academy better to have kids compete with kids from same year. Also makes the grass root level better because kids can play with their friends. Nothing but upside by going to SY. Other than parents being upset their kid loses the I’m older advantage.

Which is understandable. I’m sure Aug to Dec parents felt the same way in 2017.

All kids born in Q3 and Q4 aren't late developers.

[Anonymous]

This thread making ECLN remind me of all those football leagues that popped up in spring and summer on NBC with all kinds of gimmicks to try and get ratings and fans

[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: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.

So if there will always be Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 regardless of SY or BY and the rest of the world (including us) uses BY and Colleges have been recruiting with BY for years because they know who they want and when they're leaving HS, there is no soccer value to changing to SY.
Only a social value for some.

The rest of the work does not use birth year. One example is England. Also many countries in Europe (almost all) offer bio banding up to U17.

If there will always be REI why not just eliminate trap players and add in the social part with soccer? Makes academy better to have kids compete with kids from same year. Also makes the grass root level better because kids can play with their friends. Nothing but upside by going to SY. Other than parents being upset their kid loses the I’m older advantage.

Which is understandable. I’m sure Aug to Dec parents felt the same way in 2017.

All kids born in Q3 and Q4 aren't late developers.

+1000

This is where all these SY cheerleaders fall off the cliff when they start using REA to advocate their desire.

IMO it’s the most revealing argument they make. It seems they all believe that their little Chad and Chadette would be global footy stars if I just weren’t for their September birthdate and the ignorant coaches who can’t see they just need an extra month of growth at 15 to catch up with all those New Years babies who aren’t as good as little Chad, they’re just already shaving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the screenshot from Socal, the change in ECNL is a done deal. They just need to coordinate with the governing body on how to proceed. This will make ECNL a more exclusive league and help college recruiting be smoother. GA either has to follow suit or lose players.

This is a lie.

The unsubstantiated screenshot, if taken at face value explicitly says it isn’t a done deal.

Sorry, but the intention is very clear. The change is coming from ECNL, one way or another.

US Club soccer and USSF will decide in November what will happen. As of now it’s still a possibility. But needs to be finalized. From what I understand this would be all leagues not just ECNL.

The rumor mill started with “ECNL director says BY for fall 2025”

Once that was pointed out that it had to come from USCS, it’s morphed into “all other leagues via USSF”

MLSN is not going to change. The pro leagues, World Cup, etc are the big deciding priorities for USSF.

The meetings are public…this is not a thing. It wasn’t discussed in May, and it’s not on the November agenda for “finalization.”

This is the text I received tonight from someone at ECNL.

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

That’s weird, I receive a message from someone at US Club Soccer that said: Reply Hazy, Try Again”