ECNL moving to school year part 2

[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.

doesn't just define who is on the team also defines who is on the bench.

[Anonymous]

U-13/U-14 will be affected to some degree, with maturity rates all over the map.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:U-13/U-14 will be affected to some degree, with maturity rates all over the map.

And U15 puberty size difference between age 13 and 15 can be huge. Like adults vs kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If the parents don't care about the change then they wouldn't care about the disruption either.

I think the confusion here is a definitional one with the term “disruption.”

Your perspective seems to be of one that believes disruption will provide significant opportunity for people not on top teams to be placed on them. Outside, looking in.

Most kids and families on top teams already know they’ll still be there. For them to disruption is knowing that some of their teammates, carpools, coach assignments, etc. are going to change. Not their position on a top team, for most kids on top teams their position is secure.

For most of the kids, it’s about knowing that maybe their best friend who’s a Q1 when they’re a Q3 might be playing on a different team, after those two kids have played together for five years. Insiders, looking inside.

This is an important nuance -- although even without the age change, there's always a measure of turnover on all teams each season, even top ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The littles parent know it alls posts about how things work on olders teams is mind numbing to read. Its so obvious that they dont understand how things change when kids get older.

Yeah, I've got to stop arguing with people that have no clue what they're talking about yet still comment like they're an expert.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If the parents don't care about the change then they wouldn't care about the disruption either.

Not a thinker are yah. 🤯

So they do care about the disruption then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If the parents don't care about the change then they wouldn't care about the disruption either.

Not a thinker are yah. 🤯

So they do care about the disruption then?

DP. Disruption is never ideal but maybe what PP was getting at is that players who are on top boys teams by U13 and above, particularly starters or top 5 for example, are not going to care about SY or BY or who is on their team or whether they have friends on their team.

They are hyper focused on themselves and developing, whatever it takes, including adapting to new teammates, etc. Things that are in their control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If the parents don't care about the change then they wouldn't care about the disruption either.

Not a thinker are yah. 🤯

So they do care about the disruption then?

DP. Disruption is never ideal but maybe what PP was getting at is that players who are on top boys teams by U13 and above, particularly starters or top 5 for example, are not going to care about SY or BY or who is on their team or whether they have friends on their team.

They are hyper focused on themselves and developing, whatever it takes, including adapting to new teammates, etc. Things that are in their control.

This wouldn't be true on older boys teams or areas with competitive or multiple teams. Lots of pressure to excel not just maintain

[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.

50% turnover for the top ECNL team next year guaranteed. You are talking about 5 months players going down the age group. A local team just beat a younger NL team 6:3. Just 1/2 older players from every local team to compete for a NL spot.

[Anonymous]

50% turnover for the top ECNL team next year guaranteed. You are talking about 5 months players going down the age group. A local team just beat a younger NL team 6:3. Just 1/2 older players from every local team to compete for a NL spot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If the parents don't care about the change then they wouldn't care about the disruption either.

Not a thinker are yah. 🤯

So they do care about the disruption then?

DP. Disruption is never ideal but maybe what PP was getting at is that players who are on top boys teams by U13 and above, particularly starters or top 5 for example, are not going to care about SY or BY or who is on their team or whether they have friends on their team.

They are hyper focused on themselves and developing, whatever it takes, including adapting to new teammates, etc. Things that are in their control.

This wouldn't be true on older boys teams or areas with competitive or multiple teams. Lots of pressure to excel not just maintain

So our club went a year early. The top 14/15 team which is all 5th graders now, who will play year up this year to accommodate the 14s is now about half and Q4 14s and half 15s. Those Q4 14s came mostly from top couple 14 teams the year prior, and the 15s from the best group. The 14 parents are sort of meh about the change, there are plusses and minuses, but all the 15 parents are delighted for their kid to play with and against bigger better kids. Our kids are at a fairly large club with many teams per age group for context.

Anyway, those reactions are basically what everyone on this forum who seems to know soccer are saying they would be. Mine kid is a 14 in that mix and I am firmly in the meh camp. It has clearly been good for my Q4 that they have been playing with older kids for their soccer career thus far, and I'll miss it, but its also not a bad thing to ball out sometimes. So I guess it's whatever.

[Anonymous]

I honestly can't believe people are still talking about this. Is it like two obsessed possibly autistic people posting over and over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I honestly can't believe people are still talking about this. Is it like two obsessed possibly autistic people posting over and over.

More like one person that's posting in multiple threads and responding to their own posts.

[Anonymous]

Truth is while people here have been obsessing for months a lot of people otherwise not paying attention are just starting to process it now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!)

The only subsidizing happening is the families subsidizing the travel industry with multiple out of town trips a year for no reason. Otherwise soccer is only a couple of grand a year.