ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Get ready for the GA to allow biobanding.
GA/MLSN will be staying birth year and the plan is for them to be the pro path way. ECNL will be college recruitment pathway.

GA already has bio banding. It's more limited than MLS, so maybe it expands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:By waiting will the clubs now focus on q3 q4 kids at tryouts this Spring and put them on A teams at a younger age for fall?

😂 clubs are not putting mediocre kids on good teams period. They give zero hoots about the birthdays in terms of “potential” next year. Next year is a different coach’s problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get ready for the GA to allow biobanding.
GA/MLSN will be staying birth year and the plan is for them to be the pro path way. ECNL will be college recruitment pathway.

GA already has bio banding. It's more limited than MLS, so maybe it expands.

They got rid of the late developer program this year. Now they are bringing it back but for all age groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I'm a club with pre-ecnl starting at 2015 now? I'm filling that team with q3 q4 kids at tryouts this year.

No you’re not…you’re filling it with the best kids in that age band that fill your roster.

All this complaining about RAE, and nobody seems to get how RAE works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By waiting will the clubs now focus on q3 q4 kids at tryouts this Spring and put them on A teams at a younger age for fall?

😂 clubs are not putting mediocre kids on good teams period. They give zero hoots about the birthdays in terms of “potential” next year. Next year is a different coach’s problem.

I agree the the sentiment that clubs are not gonna go off and recruit Q3 /Q4 kids, but if you’re playing in a club that thinks of next year as a different coach’s problem you should change clubs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By waiting will the clubs now focus on q3 q4 kids at tryouts this Spring and put them on A teams at a younger age for fall?

😂 clubs are not putting mediocre kids on good teams period. They give zero hoots about the birthdays in terms of “potential” next year. Next year is a different coach’s problem.

Definitely will not put themselves at a disadvantage but don’t be surprised to see tournament teams and league play teams.

If the rules change for tournaments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Get ready for the GA to allow biobanding.
GA/MLSN will be staying birth year and the plan is for them to be the pro path way. ECNL will be college recruitment pathway.

GA and MLSN are also going to stay college pathways. But you’re right, GA is clearly making a play to move around ECNL and offer a pro-pathway. It’s smart and good timing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By waiting will the clubs now focus on q3 q4 kids at tryouts this Spring and put them on A teams at a younger age for fall?

😂 clubs are not putting mediocre kids on good teams period. They give zero hoots about the birthdays in terms of “potential” next year. Next year is a different coach’s problem.

Definitely will not put themselves at a disadvantage but don’t be surprised to see tournament teams and league play teams.

If the rules change for tournaments.

God can you imagine?

That is how the UK has to do it too. But the parents in the UK are kept more at arms length.

Every f-ing tournament ECNL coaches and clubs are going to get deluged with “why isn’t little Betty on the tournament team with all the other girls? She is clearly the best girl in the whole club…why why why?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get ready for the GA to allow biobanding.
GA/MLSN will be staying birth year and the plan is for them to be the pro path way. ECNL will be college recruitment pathway.

GA and MLSN are also going to stay college pathways. But you’re right, GA is clearly making a play to move around ECNL and offer a pro-pathway. It’s smart and good timing.

But to get girls who will go the prow pathway we need more academies affiliated with pro clubs. Otherwise top girls will stay in ECNL until they can go pro or goto college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I'm a club with pre-ecnl starting at 2015 now? I'm filling that team with q3 q4 kids at tryouts this year.

No you’re not…you’re filling it with the best kids in that age band that fill your roster.

All this complaining about RAE, and nobody seems to get how RAE works.

Other than the oldest team, why would a team have a bunch of Q1-2 kids on the bench when most are going to get dropped the next year anyway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get ready for the GA to allow biobanding.
GA/MLSN will be staying birth year and the plan is for them to be the pro path way. ECNL will be college recruitment pathway.

GA and MLSN are also going to stay college pathways. But you’re right, GA is clearly making a play to move around ECNL and offer a pro-pathway. It’s smart and good timing.

But to get girls who will go the prow pathway we need more academies affiliated with pro clubs. Otherwise top girls will stay in ECNL until they can go pro or goto college.

You’re right, but It’s iterative. It’s not like the swish of a magic want builds the pathway overnight. The exciting thing is that it’s clear what groundwork is being laid for the women’s game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I'm a club with pre-ecnl starting at 2015 now? I'm filling that team with q3 q4 kids at tryouts this year.

No you’re not…you’re filling it with the best kids in that age band that fill your roster.

All this complaining about RAE, and nobody seems to get how RAE works.

Other than the oldest team, why would a team have a bunch of Q1-2 kids on the bench when most are going to get dropped the next year anyway?

According to who? Why are you putting in birth quarters like it’s meaningful? You’re making lots of assumptions and wishful thinking.

Coaches will fill their rosters with the best kids for that year, not the kids that have the best birthdays. Then kids have to go perform.

Top teams are not rostering kids based on “birthday potential” that if put into a game lineup won’t help the team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I'm a club with pre-ecnl starting at 2015 now? I'm filling that team with q3 q4 kids at tryouts this year.

No you’re not…you’re filling it with the best kids in that age band that fill your roster.

All this complaining about RAE, and nobody seems to get how RAE works.

Other than the oldest team, why would a team have a bunch of Q1-2 kids on the bench when most are going to get dropped the next year anyway?

According to who? Why are you putting in birth quarters like it’s meaningful? You’re making lots of assumptions and wishful thinking.

Coaches will fill their rosters with the best kids for that year, not the kids that have the best birthdays. Then kids have to go perform.

Top teams are not rostering kids based on “birthday potential” that if put into a game lineup won’t help the team.

Noah built an arc, others drowned. Planning ahead is prudent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By waiting will the clubs now focus on q3 q4 kids at tryouts this Spring and put them on A teams at a younger age for fall?

😂 clubs are not putting mediocre kids on good teams period. They give zero hoots about the birthdays in terms of “potential” next year. Next year is a different coach’s problem.

Definitely will not put themselves at a disadvantage but don’t be surprised to see tournament teams and league play teams.

If the rules change for tournaments.

God can you imagine?

That is how the UK has to do it too. But the parents in the UK are kept more at arms length.

Every f-ing tournament ECNL coaches and clubs are going to get deluged with “why isn’t little Betty on the tournament team with all the other girls? She is clearly the best girl in the whole club…why why why?”

This whole thread exists because BY parents don’t want to give an inch to SY because that puts their kid at a disadvantage. Same can be said for families who want SY because they believe their kid being older for the group will give them an edge in some way.

We pay clubs a lot of money it’s their job to deal with parents complaining. Which is already happening. Also the vast majority of Q1/2 kids will still be part of the tournament teams you would essentially swap the Q3/4 kids so those families/kids don’t lose out either for tournament teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I'm a club with pre-ecnl starting at 2015 now? I'm filling that team with q3 q4 kids at tryouts this year.

No you’re not…you’re filling it with the best kids in that age band that fill your roster.

All this complaining about RAE, and nobody seems to get how RAE works.

The coach will prefer Q3/Q4 bench players than Q1/Q2 bench. Starters are from the best players regardless Q.