ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

UK families can have more control because it’s FREE! I’ll let my kids coach tell me to F off if it means I don’t have to pay for anything.

[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.

For bench players, coach will pick Q3/Q4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I like the statement from US Soccer, and it makes sense with states having diffrent school cutoffs. But again why wait until 26/27? Because of one state (California?) Holding tryouts in January? Who holds tryouts in January? Why? Clubs DO NOT need 2 years to figure the registration process out. 8 months is plenty of time to transition into sy or whatever is proposed. Waiting is only going to create one toxic year of soccer 25/26 with poaching, playing time, parent drama, knowing q3 q4 kids are going to be sought after with an impending change to teams switching to sy.

If you’re this invested in this then seek help. There’s no way they can get this figured out this fast.

My investment is about $8,000 a year for my daughter doing something she loves and is hard which she thrives in. No help needed here, happy to spend the money! I'm just a concerned and involved parent that participants in his daughters ambition's. Yes, I manage my daughters ecnl team so I do have a connection with board members & the directors at a prominent club. 8 months is plenty of time to transition accordingto them. Maybe find a club that is willing and proactive of change? If I was in your position obviously the director is either lazy or incapable of change if it takes 2 years for them. Cheers!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

For bench players, coach will pick Q3/Q4.

I agree in the past and even currently when coaches are deciding on players they would pick kids who were close at skill level to the older bigger(on average) kids. Now it’s better to collect as many talented Q3/4 players you can and make it all work for a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

For bench players, coach will pick Q3/Q4.

I agree in the past and even currently when coaches are deciding on players they would pick kids who were close at skill level to the older bigger(on average) kids. Now it’s better to collect as many talented Q3/4 players you can and make it all work for a year.

Yes, Q3/Q4 bench players need to train with the Q1/Q2 starters, so they can become starters or impact players in the younger group.

Q1/Q2 bench players have to make room for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

For bench players, coach will pick Q3/Q4.

I agree in the past and even currently when coaches are deciding on players they would pick kids who were close at skill level to the older bigger(on average) kids. Now it’s better to collect as many talented Q3/4 players you can and make it all work for a year.

Yes, Q3/Q4 bench players need to train with the Q1/Q2 starters, so they can become starters or impact players in the younger group.

Q1/Q2 bench players have to make room for them.

This is why savvy parents need to keep their options open, especially if they have a BY/SY club to pick from.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone think ECNL will allow states to set their own cutoff (say either 8/1 or 9/1) and not have something uniform across the entire league?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SoCal going SY fall ‘26

9-1 date

Source?

As good as it gets

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think ECNL will allow states to set their own cutoff (say either 8/1 or 9/1) and not have something uniform across the entire league?

Lower level leagues will have different cutoffs per state. But ECNL will have a league standard for cut offs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think ECNL will allow states to set their own cutoff (say either 8/1 or 9/1) and not have something uniform across the entire league?

Lower level leagues will have different cutoffs per state. But ECNL will have a league standard for cut offs.

ECNL will go 9/1 for league and nationals. Showcases will be Grad year.
So don’t worry your August kid will still get to play with their grade for college recruiting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think ECNL will allow states to set their own cutoff (say either 8/1 or 9/1) and not have something uniform across the entire league?

Lower level leagues will have different cutoffs per state. But ECNL will have a league standard for cut offs.

ECNL will go 9/1 for league and nationals. Showcases will be Grad year.
So don’t worry your August kid will still get to play with their grade for college recruiting.

Huh? So they throw some Aug kids onto a team they don’t know/train with for a showcase or two? Or, and hear me out, they just move the cutoff to 8/1 like it was before?

Having options for rec and state wide leagues makes sense. But a solution for a national leagues has to include all state’s cutoffs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think ECNL will allow states to set their own cutoff (say either 8/1 or 9/1) and not have something uniform across the entire league?

Lower level leagues will have different cutoffs per state. But ECNL will have a league standard for cut offs.

ECNL will go 9/1 for league and nationals. Showcases will be Grad year.
So don’t worry your August kid will still get to play with their grade for college recruiting.

Huh? So they throw some Aug kids onto a team they don’t know/train with for a showcase or two? Or, and hear me out, they just move the cutoff to 8/1 like it was before?

Having options for rec and state wide leagues makes sense. But a solution for a national leagues has to include all state’s cutoffs.

That’s what I’m hearing. Yes 8/1 would lead to less trapped players but would also lead to more kids not playing in their school grade because the majority of state start 9/1 or later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think ECNL will allow states to set their own cutoff (say either 8/1 or 9/1) and not have something uniform across the entire league?

Lower level leagues will have different cutoffs per state. But ECNL will have a league standard for cut offs.

ECNL will go 9/1 for league and nationals. Showcases will be Grad year.
So don’t worry your August kid will still get to play with their grade for college recruiting.

Huh? So they throw some Aug kids onto a team they don’t know/train with for a showcase or two? Or, and hear me out, they just move the cutoff to 8/1 like it was before?

Having options for rec and state wide leagues makes sense. But a solution for a national leagues has to include all state’s cutoffs.

That’s what I’m hearing. Yes 8/1 would lead to less trapped players but would also lead to more kids not playing in their school grade because the majority of state start 9/1 or later.

Set to 9/1 to avoid the reverse trap. For Aug. kids who can still make the NL team as the youngest will have a chance for college recruiting, so they can join the younger team during the showcase. If Aug. kids can not make NL team, they will have little hope for college. People needs to understand the ECNL intention to switch to SY is to align team for better college recruiting opportunity. Reduce trap players is a byproduct of this change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think ECNL will allow states to set their own cutoff (say either 8/1 or 9/1) and not have something uniform across the entire league?

Lower level leagues will have different cutoffs per state. But ECNL will have a league standard for cut offs.

ECNL will go 9/1 for league and nationals. Showcases will be Grad year.
So don’t worry your August kid will still get to play with their grade for college recruiting.

Huh? So they throw some Aug kids onto a team they don’t know/train with for a showcase or two? Or, and hear me out, they just move the cutoff to 8/1 like it was before?

Having options for rec and state wide leagues makes sense. But a solution for a national leagues has to include all state’s cutoffs.

That’s what I’m hearing. Yes 8/1 would lead to less trapped players but would also lead to more kids not playing in their school grade because the majority of state start 9/1 or later.

Set to 9/1 to avoid the reverse trap. For Aug. kids who can still make the NL team as the youngest will have a chance for college recruiting, so they can join the younger team during the showcase. If Aug. kids can not make NL team, they will have little hope for college. People needs to understand the ECNL intention to switch to SY is to align team for better college recruiting opportunity. Reduce trap players is a byproduct of this change.

There is no reverse trap. You could play up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think ECNL will allow states to set their own cutoff (say either 8/1 or 9/1) and not have something uniform across the entire league?

Lower level leagues will have different cutoffs per state. But ECNL will have a league standard for cut offs.

ECNL will go 9/1 for league and nationals. Showcases will be Grad year.
So don’t worry your August kid will still get to play with their grade for college recruiting.

Huh? So they throw some Aug kids onto a team they don’t know/train with for a showcase or two? Or, and hear me out, they just move the cutoff to 8/1 like it was before?

Having options for rec and state wide leagues makes sense. But a solution for a national leagues has to include all state’s cutoffs.

That’s what I’m hearing. Yes 8/1 would lead to less trapped players but would also lead to more kids not playing in their school grade because the majority of state start 9/1 or later.

Set to 9/1 to avoid the reverse trap. For Aug. kids who can still make the NL team as the youngest will have a chance for college recruiting, so they can join the younger team during the showcase. If Aug. kids can not make NL team, they will have little hope for college. People needs to understand the ECNL intention to switch to SY is to align team for better college recruiting opportunity. Reduce trap players is a byproduct of this change.

There is no reverse trap. You could play up.

Your logic is stupid. Set to Aug. 1 will cause reverse trap to happen. And Aug. players have to play up to avoid the newly created trap on them.