ECNL moving to school year part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dont see bio banding listed anywhere in the MLSN Academy rules.

It’s definitely a rule. Which I know isn’t a good argument but just ask your MLSN director and he will tell you all about it.

Marketed as Late Developer.

Sold to those okay with cheating

I will say it’s definitely a bummer when kids bioband and just because they are smaller that makes it okay for them to take spots from kids for a specific age group. But it’s a limited amount of players per game and it’s usually a club decision to move a kid down because they are small.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some weirdo is abusing the anonymity to answer their own questions no doubt. And then accuse others of “astroturfing”…we see you

Whats interesting is the militant SY poster is a boys ECNL parent. Or maybe a boys ECNL coach. You dont run into these types very often. Boys teams are more fluid than girls teams. This is why MLSN works so well. It just recruits talent from all the different leagues around them. Because of this you dont usually see boys parents emotionally tied to a specific club or league. Add in that puberty can completely change what boys are like on the field.

Since we know your kid is a boy playing in boys ECNL. What do you think you'll gain with SY? MLSN already has biobanding and for what its worth most top players are playing up 1-2 years. These are the ones that will play professionally or get college scholarship offers first. Your kid playing down because of ECNL switching from BY to SY wont become a superstar.

If the top players are already playing 1-2 years up then why is there a forum of parents concerned over an age change to SY why would anyone care? If your kid is ECNL or MLSN changing really wouldn’t matter because their kids are elite?

The answer to the question is it definitely matters because even amongst ECNL or MLSN the majority of player are not at the level to play up and be as effective. Especially when all players are talented and the skill difference is usually very small.

So now you change the age groups and introduce 6 months of older, bigger, stronger players on average which makes it even more challenging to get on the field.

Which is why some parents are hoping GA/MLSN stay BY because they don’t want their kids playing against even older players because that makes games more difficult and competitive in a soccer landscape that’s already ultra competitive.

Um….because the vast majority of parents are on the outside looking in, and think that the SY for rec + ECNL change will benefit their kid in such to such a drastic degree that they’ll then be on the inside.

What about the kids that are at the top level, that are Q4 kids? They exist and will have a distinct advantage IF they decide to play in the new age groupings.

You mean the kids already on the inside?

I don’t know a single parent or kid from top teams that 1) cares about the age change 2) wants the disruption it will cause to their kid, team and development.

Any benefit that accrues will be to the u-littles. The kids (parents) on the outside won’t get the result they think they’ll get. Know why? Because the 18-20 seats are already filled age group after age group. The only change is where you draw the line between which age group they’re in.

Of course there will be some kids that bounce off (there always is) because they’re on the bubble. Spoiler alert…bubble kids are in all birth months, as will be the kids that replace them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dont see bio banding listed anywhere in the MLSN Academy rules.

It’s definitely a rule. Which I know isn’t a good argument but just ask your MLSN director and he will tell you all about it.

Marketed as Late Developer.

Sold to those okay with cheating

I will say it’s definitely a bummer when kids bioband and just because they are smaller that makes it okay for them to take spots from kids for a specific age group. But it’s a limited amount of players per game and it’s usually a club decision to move a kid down because they are small.

Biobanding gives those cheaters a legal way to rob the younger age group. Thankfully, ECNL does not have this kind of sh*tty rule for cheaters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dont see bio banding listed anywhere in the MLSN Academy rules.

It’s definitely a rule. Which I know isn’t a good argument but just ask your MLSN director and he will tell you all about it.

Marketed as Late Developer.

Sold to those okay with cheating

I will say it’s definitely a bummer when kids bioband and just because they are smaller that makes it okay for them to take spots from kids for a specific age group. But it’s a limited amount of players per game and it’s usually a club decision to move a kid down because they are small.

Biobanding gives those cheaters a legal way to rob the younger age group. Thankfully, ECNL does not have this kind of sh*tty rule for cheaters.

Guess they don't like to innovate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some weirdo is abusing the anonymity to answer their own questions no doubt. And then accuse others of “astroturfing”…we see you

Whats interesting is the militant SY poster is a boys ECNL parent. Or maybe a boys ECNL coach. You dont run into these types very often. Boys teams are more fluid than girls teams. This is why MLSN works so well. It just recruits talent from all the different leagues around them. Because of this you dont usually see boys parents emotionally tied to a specific club or league. Add in that puberty can completely change what boys are like on the field.

Since we know your kid is a boy playing in boys ECNL. What do you think you'll gain with SY? MLSN already has biobanding and for what its worth most top players are playing up 1-2 years. These are the ones that will play professionally or get college scholarship offers first. Your kid playing down because of ECNL switching from BY to SY wont become a superstar.

If the top players are already playing 1-2 years up then why is there a forum of parents concerned over an age change to SY why would anyone care? If your kid is ECNL or MLSN changing really wouldn’t matter because their kids are elite?

The answer to the question is it definitely matters because even amongst ECNL or MLSN the majority of player are not at the level to play up and be as effective. Especially when all players are talented and the skill difference is usually very small.

So now you change the age groups and introduce 6 months of older, bigger, stronger players on average which makes it even more challenging to get on the field.

Which is why some parents are hoping GA/MLSN stay BY because they don’t want their kids playing against even older players because that makes games more difficult and competitive in a soccer landscape that’s already ultra competitive.

Actually parents with Q1 birthdays welcome playing up against older kids -- it'll help them get better. If anything, they don't like the uncertainty or disrurption of existing teams, which is reasonable. Strategically, it may even favor GA to delay a couple of seasons to give ECNL top players a possible landing spot if they don't like how things shake out. But long-term it makes sense for all, except the MLS academies to switch, frankly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some weirdo is abusing the anonymity to answer their own questions no doubt. And then accuse others of “astroturfing”…we see you

Whats interesting is the militant SY poster is a boys ECNL parent. Or maybe a boys ECNL coach. You dont run into these types very often. Boys teams are more fluid than girls teams. This is why MLSN works so well. It just recruits talent from all the different leagues around them. Because of this you dont usually see boys parents emotionally tied to a specific club or league. Add in that puberty can completely change what boys are like on the field.

Since we know your kid is a boy playing in boys ECNL. What do you think you'll gain with SY? MLSN already has biobanding and for what its worth most top players are playing up 1-2 years. These are the ones that will play professionally or get college scholarship offers first. Your kid playing down because of ECNL switching from BY to SY wont become a superstar.

If the top players are already playing 1-2 years up then why is there a forum of parents concerned over an age change to SY why would anyone care? If your kid is ECNL or MLSN changing really wouldn’t matter because their kids are elite?

The answer to the question is it definitely matters because even amongst ECNL or MLSN the majority of player are not at the level to play up and be as effective. Especially when all players are talented and the skill difference is usually very small.

So now you change the age groups and introduce 6 months of older, bigger, stronger players on average which makes it even more challenging to get on the field.

Which is why some parents are hoping GA/MLSN stay BY because they don’t want their kids playing against even older players because that makes games more difficult and competitive in a soccer landscape that’s already ultra competitive.

Actually parents with Q1 birthdays welcome playing up against older kids -- it'll help them get better. If anything, they don't like the uncertainty or disrurption of existing teams, which is reasonable. Strategically, it may even favor GA to delay a couple of seasons to give ECNL top players a possible landing spot if they don't like how things shake out. But long-term it makes sense for all, except the MLS academies to switch, frankly.

"Actually parents with Q1 birthdays welcome playing up against older kids " if this was even remotely true you all would be currently playing up. You are not so your imagined scenario is a lie you tell yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dont see bio banding listed anywhere in the MLSN Academy rules.

It’s definitely a rule. Which I know isn’t a good argument but just ask your MLSN director and he will tell you all about it.

Marketed as Late Developer.

Sold to those okay with cheating

I will say it’s definitely a bummer when kids bioband and just because they are smaller that makes it okay for them to take spots from kids for a specific age group. But it’s a limited amount of players per game and it’s usually a club decision to move a kid down because they are small.

Biobanding gives those cheaters a legal way to rob the younger age group. Thankfully, ECNL does not have this kind of sh*tty rule for cheaters.

Guess they don't like to innovate.

Innovate to cater to cheaters, hell no. ECNL still has moral decency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dont see bio banding listed anywhere in the MLSN Academy rules.

It’s definitely a rule. Which I know isn’t a good argument but just ask your MLSN director and he will tell you all about it.

Marketed as Late Developer.

Sold to those okay with cheating

I will say it’s definitely a bummer when kids bioband and just because they are smaller that makes it okay for them to take spots from kids for a specific age group. But it’s a limited amount of players per game and it’s usually a club decision to move a kid down because they are small.

Biobanding gives those cheaters a legal way to rob the younger age group. Thankfully, ECNL does not have this kind of sh*tty rule for cheaters.

Guess they don't like to innovate.

Innovate to cater to cheaters, hell no. ECNL still has moral decency.

ECNL has “moral decency”?! Did you seriously type that as a grown adult while discussing bio-banding?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some weirdo is abusing the anonymity to answer their own questions no doubt. And then accuse others of “astroturfing”…we see you

Whats interesting is the militant SY poster is a boys ECNL parent. Or maybe a boys ECNL coach. You dont run into these types very often. Boys teams are more fluid than girls teams. This is why MLSN works so well. It just recruits talent from all the different leagues around them. Because of this you dont usually see boys parents emotionally tied to a specific club or league. Add in that puberty can completely change what boys are like on the field.

Since we know your kid is a boy playing in boys ECNL. What do you think you'll gain with SY? MLSN already has biobanding and for what its worth most top players are playing up 1-2 years. These are the ones that will play professionally or get college scholarship offers first. Your kid playing down because of ECNL switching from BY to SY wont become a superstar.

If the top players are already playing 1-2 years up then why is there a forum of parents concerned over an age change to SY why would anyone care? If your kid is ECNL or MLSN changing really wouldn’t matter because their kids are elite?

The answer to the question is it definitely matters because even amongst ECNL or MLSN the majority of player are not at the level to play up and be as effective. Especially when all players are talented and the skill difference is usually very small.

So now you change the age groups and introduce 6 months of older, bigger, stronger players on average which makes it even more challenging to get on the field.

Which is why some parents are hoping GA/MLSN stay BY because they don’t want their kids playing against even older players because that makes games more difficult and competitive in a soccer landscape that’s already ultra competitive.

Um….because the vast majority of parents are on the outside looking in, and think that the SY for rec + ECNL change will benefit their kid in such to such a drastic degree that they’ll then be on the inside.

What about the kids that are at the top level, that are Q4 kids? They exist and will have a distinct advantage IF they decide to play in the new age groupings.

You mean the kids already on the inside?

I don’t know a single parent or kid from top teams that 1) cares about the age change 2) wants the disruption it will cause to their kid, team and development.

Any benefit that accrues will be to the u-littles. The kids (parents) on the outside won’t get the result they think they’ll get. Know why? Because the 18-20 seats are already filled age group after age group. The only change is where you draw the line between which age group they’re in.

Of course there will be some kids that bounce off (there always is) because they’re on the bubble. Spoiler alert…bubble kids are in all birth months, as will be the kids that replace them.

First off, your number 1 and 2 are in conflict.

And inherently, BY supporters recognize the downside to switching to SY and having their kids forced to lose about 6 months of an age advantage as seen in the protesting (as they should).

There will be blood; teams will be blown up and many top players will lose their union cards to older/bigger 2nd teamers from outside their club.

The one year delay will make many testy next year for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dont see bio banding listed anywhere in the MLSN Academy rules.

It’s definitely a rule. Which I know isn’t a good argument but just ask your MLSN director and he will tell you all about it.

Marketed as Late Developer.

Sold to those okay with cheating

I will say it’s definitely a bummer when kids bioband and just because they are smaller that makes it okay for them to take spots from kids for a specific age group. But it’s a limited amount of players per game and it’s usually a club decision to move a kid down because they are small.

Biobanding gives those cheaters a legal way to rob the younger age group. Thankfully, ECNL does not have this kind of sh*tty rule for cheaters.

Guess they don't like to innovate.

Innovate to cater to cheaters, hell no. ECNL still has moral decency.

ECNL has “moral decency”?! Did you seriously type that as a grown adult while discussing bio-banding?

You wish ECNL to "innovate" to have bioband so that you can cheat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dont see bio banding listed anywhere in the MLSN Academy rules.

It’s definitely a rule. Which I know isn’t a good argument but just ask your MLSN director and he will tell you all about it.

Marketed as Late Developer.

Sold to those okay with cheating

I will say it’s definitely a bummer when kids bioband and just because they are smaller that makes it okay for them to take spots from kids for a specific age group. But it’s a limited amount of players per game and it’s usually a club decision to move a kid down because they are small.

Biobanding gives those cheaters a legal way to rob the younger age group. Thankfully, ECNL does not have this kind of sh*tty rule for cheaters.

Guess they don't like to innovate.

Innovate to cater to cheaters, hell no. ECNL still has moral decency.

ECNL has “moral decency”?! Did you seriously type that as a grown adult while discussing bio-banding?

You wish ECNL to "innovate" to have bioband so that you can cheat.

No, he's just really excited to play down via SY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dont see bio banding listed anywhere in the MLSN Academy rules.

It’s definitely a rule. Which I know isn’t a good argument but just ask your MLSN director and he will tell you all about it.

Marketed as Late Developer.

Sold to those okay with cheating

I will say it’s definitely a bummer when kids bioband and just because they are smaller that makes it okay for them to take spots from kids for a specific age group. But it’s a limited amount of players per game and it’s usually a club decision to move a kid down because they are small.

Biobanding gives those cheaters a legal way to rob the younger age group. Thankfully, ECNL does not have this kind of sh*tty rule for cheaters.

Guess they don't like to innovate.

Innovate to cater to cheaters, hell no. ECNL still has moral decency.

ECNL has “moral decency”?! Did you seriously type that as a grown adult while discussing bio-banding?

You wish ECNL to "innovate" to have bioband so that you can cheat.

No, he's just really excited to play down via SY.

By your definition, the current Jan-May players are playing down. It has to be a 12-month range, and early months players are playing down against younger players. I agree that using biobanding in P2P clubs is shady, and you are playing against some 20 to 23 months younger players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some weirdo is abusing the anonymity to answer their own questions no doubt. And then accuse others of “astroturfing”…we see you

Whats interesting is the militant SY poster is a boys ECNL parent. Or maybe a boys ECNL coach. You dont run into these types very often. Boys teams are more fluid than girls teams. This is why MLSN works so well. It just recruits talent from all the different leagues around them. Because of this you dont usually see boys parents emotionally tied to a specific club or league. Add in that puberty can completely change what boys are like on the field.

Since we know your kid is a boy playing in boys ECNL. What do you think you'll gain with SY? MLSN already has biobanding and for what its worth most top players are playing up 1-2 years. These are the ones that will play professionally or get college scholarship offers first. Your kid playing down because of ECNL switching from BY to SY wont become a superstar.

If the top players are already playing 1-2 years up then why is there a forum of parents concerned over an age change to SY why would anyone care? If your kid is ECNL or MLSN changing really wouldn’t matter because their kids are elite?

The answer to the question is it definitely matters because even amongst ECNL or MLSN the majority of player are not at the level to play up and be as effective. Especially when all players are talented and the skill difference is usually very small.

So now you change the age groups and introduce 6 months of older, bigger, stronger players on average which makes it even more challenging to get on the field.

Which is why some parents are hoping GA/MLSN stay BY because they don’t want their kids playing against even older players because that makes games more difficult and competitive in a soccer landscape that’s already ultra competitive.

Actually parents with Q1 birthdays welcome playing up against older kids -- it'll help them get better. If anything, they don't like the uncertainty or disrurption of existing teams, which is reasonable. Strategically, it may even favor GA to delay a couple of seasons to give ECNL top players a possible landing spot if they don't like how things shake out. But long-term it makes sense for all, except the MLS academies to switch, frankly.

"Actually parents with Q1 birthdays welcome playing up against older kids " if this was even remotely true you all would be currently playing up. You are not so your imagined scenario is a lie you tell yourself.

My kid is on a top team and does play up as a guest player and often trains against the older kids. Sometimes my kid would rather train against against those older/bigger kids all the time than the smaller kids on the current team -- which isn't ultimately an issue because we have one of the best coaches at the club. Speaking of which, it's a highly competitive club that's won national titles. Also interesting our Aug-Dec. players would rather stay on the current team vs. playing with the younger kids, so this desire to play against older kids IS a thing, especially at higher levels. That's our reality. What's yours?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some weirdo is abusing the anonymity to answer their own questions no doubt. And then accuse others of “astroturfing”…we see you

Whats interesting is the militant SY poster is a boys ECNL parent. Or maybe a boys ECNL coach. You dont run into these types very often. Boys teams are more fluid than girls teams. This is why MLSN works so well. It just recruits talent from all the different leagues around them. Because of this you dont usually see boys parents emotionally tied to a specific club or league. Add in that puberty can completely change what boys are like on the field.

Since we know your kid is a boy playing in boys ECNL. What do you think you'll gain with SY? MLSN already has biobanding and for what its worth most top players are playing up 1-2 years. These are the ones that will play professionally or get college scholarship offers first. Your kid playing down because of ECNL switching from BY to SY wont become a superstar.

If the top players are already playing 1-2 years up then why is there a forum of parents concerned over an age change to SY why would anyone care? If your kid is ECNL or MLSN changing really wouldn’t matter because their kids are elite?

The answer to the question is it definitely matters because even amongst ECNL or MLSN the majority of player are not at the level to play up and be as effective. Especially when all players are talented and the skill difference is usually very small.

So now you change the age groups and introduce 6 months of older, bigger, stronger players on average which makes it even more challenging to get on the field.

Which is why some parents are hoping GA/MLSN stay BY because they don’t want their kids playing against even older players because that makes games more difficult and competitive in a soccer landscape that’s already ultra competitive.

Um….because the vast majority of parents are on the outside looking in, and think that the SY for rec + ECNL change will benefit their kid in such to such a drastic degree that they’ll then be on the inside.

What about the kids that are at the top level, that are Q4 kids? They exist and will have a distinct advantage IF they decide to play in the new age groupings.

You mean the kids already on the inside?

I don’t know a single parent or kid from top teams that 1) cares about the age change 2) wants the disruption it will cause to their kid, team and development.

Any benefit that accrues will be to the u-littles. The kids (parents) on the outside won’t get the result they think they’ll get. Know why? Because the 18-20 seats are already filled age group after age group. The only change is where you draw the line between which age group they’re in.

Of course there will be some kids that bounce off (there always is) because they’re on the bubble. Spoiler alert…bubble kids are in all birth months, as will be the kids that replace them.

First off, your number 1 and 2 are in conflict.

And inherently, BY supporters recognize the downside to switching to SY and having their kids forced to lose about 6 months of an age advantage as seen in the protesting (as they should).

There will be blood; teams will be blown up and many top players will lose their union cards to older/bigger 2nd teamers from outside their club.

The one year delay will make many testy next year for sure.

1&2 aren’t in conflict. Both can be true, and if you can’t understand that then we know where you are in the pecking order.

Anyone that has actually done the homework on RAE beyond Wikipedia and Google understands the diminishing impact as kids get older. Your second paragraph also belies your kids’ place in the pecking order that you’re worried about RAE.

There will be blood, the irony is it will not be on the top teams, but largely in the clawing at the NPL / DPL and below teirs for kids trying to get on RL / Aspire / Next2 thinking that it is a stepping stone to top NL / GA / MLSN.

(Thanks for helping pay to keep the grass mowed, coaches fed, and ref’s paid!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some weirdo is abusing the anonymity to answer their own questions no doubt. And then accuse others of “astroturfing”…we see you

Whats interesting is the militant SY poster is a boys ECNL parent. Or maybe a boys ECNL coach. You dont run into these types very often. Boys teams are more fluid than girls teams. This is why MLSN works so well. It just recruits talent from all the different leagues around them. Because of this you dont usually see boys parents emotionally tied to a specific club or league. Add in that puberty can completely change what boys are like on the field.

Since we know your kid is a boy playing in boys ECNL. What do you think you'll gain with SY? MLSN already has biobanding and for what its worth most top players are playing up 1-2 years. These are the ones that will play professionally or get college scholarship offers first. Your kid playing down because of ECNL switching from BY to SY wont become a superstar.

If the top players are already playing 1-2 years up then why is there a forum of parents concerned over an age change to SY why would anyone care? If your kid is ECNL or MLSN changing really wouldn’t matter because their kids are elite?

The answer to the question is it definitely matters because even amongst ECNL or MLSN the majority of player are not at the level to play up and be as effective. Especially when all players are talented and the skill difference is usually very small.

So now you change the age groups and introduce 6 months of older, bigger, stronger players on average which makes it even more challenging to get on the field.

Which is why some parents are hoping GA/MLSN stay BY because they don’t want their kids playing against even older players because that makes games more difficult and competitive in a soccer landscape that’s already ultra competitive.

Actually parents with Q1 birthdays welcome playing up against older kids -- it'll help them get better. If anything, they don't like the uncertainty or disrurption of existing teams, which is reasonable. Strategically, it may even favor GA to delay a couple of seasons to give ECNL top players a possible landing spot if they don't like how things shake out. But long-term it makes sense for all, except the MLS academies to switch, frankly.

"Actually parents with Q1 birthdays welcome playing up against older kids " if this was even remotely true you all would be currently playing up. You are not so your imagined scenario is a lie you tell yourself.

My kid is on a top team and does play up as a guest player and often trains against the older kids. Sometimes my kid would rather train against against those older/bigger kids all the time than the smaller kids on the current team -- which isn't ultimately an issue because we have one of the best coaches at the club. Speaking of which, it's a highly competitive club that's won national titles. Also interesting our Aug-Dec. players would rather stay on the current team vs. playing with the younger kids, so this desire to play against older kids IS a thing, especially at higher levels. That's our reality. What's yours?

💯