ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[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.

Nobody is going grad year 😆

Get ready for college showcases to be Grad year. Not individual teams. Which I heard was being talked about months ago. The new rule guidelines confirm this can be done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

nothing is free. lmao.

Substantially cheaper and yes ask any of the many UK coaches running around America. Most of the time it’s free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9-1 to 7-31 August plays grad year. There.. i contributed to 1000

Too simple and makes too much sense. Be gone from this forum.

Yes!!! Long time listener, first time contributor… This is what I’ve been saying all along. This would solve the problem.

At that point why not just go Grad Year for all kids?

[Anonymous]

Where are all the people that said nothing’s changing in 2026? I believed in Santa…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9-1 to 7-31 August plays grad year. There.. i contributed to 1000

Too simple and makes too much sense. Be gone from this forum.

Yes!!! Long time listener, first time contributor… This is what I’ve been saying all along. This would solve the problem.

At that point why not just go Grad Year for all kids?

Because that also creates scenarios where kids aren't playing with kids the same age, as well as way-too-competitive parents who make school decisions, in-part, based on athletics. Going with a calendar-based system largely avoids that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where are all the people that said nothing’s changing in 2026? I believed in Santa…

They are having a round with the people who said change was happening immediately.

[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.

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

Nice dream.

The coach prefers bench players that have an impact. Not bench players with some magical birthday. But you go on thinking the the birthday is the most important thing,

The thought wasn’t the coach would choose all Q3/4 players but rather choose them instead of Q1/2 players if the talent level was similar.

Why? This doesn’t make sense.
Nothing will change on a team if potential players are the same - they will have to be significantly better especially on already established competitive teams where entrenched team dynamics for success already exist.

[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.

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

Nice dream.

The coach prefers bench players that have an impact. Not bench players with some magical birthday. But you go on thinking the the birthday is the most important thing,

The thought wasn’t the coach would choose all Q3/4 players but rather choose them instead of Q1/2 players if the talent level was similar.

Why? This doesn’t make sense.
Nothing will change on a team if potential players are the same - they will have to be significantly better especially on already established competitive teams where entrenched team dynamics for success already exist.

Entrenched team dynamics beyond U12 is a unicorn.

As rosters expand from 7v7 to 9v9 and from 9v9 to 11v11, promotions from the second team and players picked at tryouts to expand top rosters are absolutely going to seriously lean towards Q3-4 if a club cares about it's future.

[Anonymous]

What about large local leagues that have a multiple of club teams (from 3 states) as well as platform teams including DPL, NPL, Pre-GA, ECNL-RL? It seems because of the trickle down effect they would have to all be SY

[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.

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

Nice dream.

The coach prefers bench players that have an impact. Not bench players with some magical birthday. But you go on thinking the the birthday is the most important thing,

The thought wasn’t the coach would choose all Q3/4 players but rather choose them instead of Q1/2 players if the talent level was similar.

Why? This doesn’t make sense.
Nothing will change on a team if potential players are the same - they will have to be significantly better especially on already established competitive teams where entrenched team dynamics for success already exist.

Entrenched team dynamics beyond U12 is a unicorn.

As rosters expand from 7v7 to 9v9 and from 9v9 to 11v11, promotions from the second team and players picked at tryouts to expand top rosters are absolutely going to seriously lean towards Q3-4 if a club cares about it's future.

That's where, if it happens, leagues that stay BY stand to benefit from the frustrations of from a pretty big group of players/parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Nice dream.

The coach prefers bench players that have an impact. Not bench players with some magical birthday. But you go on thinking the the birthday is the most important thing,

The thought wasn’t the coach would choose all Q3/4 players but rather choose them instead of Q1/2 players if the talent level was similar.

Why? This doesn’t make sense.
Nothing will change on a team if potential players are the same - they will have to be significantly better especially on already established competitive teams where entrenched team dynamics for success already exist.

Entrenched team dynamics beyond U12 is a unicorn.

As rosters expand from 7v7 to 9v9 and from 9v9 to 11v11, promotions from the second team and players picked at tryouts to expand top rosters are absolutely going to seriously lean towards Q3-4 if a club cares about it's future.

That's where, if it happens, leagues that stay BY stand to benefit from the frustrations of from a pretty big group of players/parents.

Maybe or maybe the better Jan-July birth kids are happy for the challenge against older kids in school year or maybe the ones not quite good enough quit soccer at higher rates like Aug- Dec did under birth year.

Not sure what the payoff would be for leagues staying birth year if the payoff for players is HS or college ball as players under birth year would be evaluated on grade level for school ball anyway. Overall, demand for birth year mid level travel leagues would seem low even for Jan-July kids if most of the ecosystem is school year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.ussoccer.com/ecosystem-review/player-registration

Is this new?

So US Soccer says they will not get in the way, which is my interpretation of their press release. USClub Soccer and US Youth soccer co released yesterday (I am not sharing the link, you can look it up yourself), that they are meeting late Feb 27-March 1 in ‘25 with a fast follow of an implementation plan and mitigation strategies. All this being said, if they were not going to make a change, then why would then need an implementation and mitigation plan. It seems quite clear that this is happening, we just need to the specific is: how, who and the exact date cut-offs.

[Anonymous]

It’s very clear they are making a change. Just waiting a few months on the details.

[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.

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

Nice dream.

The coach prefers bench players that have an impact. Not bench players with some magical birthday. But you go on thinking the the birthday is the most important thing,

Below U14, clubs make more player calls than coaches. Benches to apprentice next year and not age up the following year.

If you think coaches put much focus on the 14-20ish back part of the roster, you would be wrong.

You make my point genius…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:9-1 to 7-31 August plays grad year. There.. i contributed to 1000

Yes. Exactly.