ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[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.

What do you think happened before? If you have two kids with similar talent fighting for the last spot on a team…the coach picks the one he likes most…they don’t check their birth certificate….and they won’t check the birth certificate in the future either.

This is some weird wishful thinking. Coaches give zero rips on birthdates. They don’t care at u-little, they don’t care at u-tween, and they don’t care even more in the teen years.

If you’re small and can ball, they aren’t checking your birth certificate, if you’re tall and can ball, they’re not checking your birth certificate.

If you’re tall and you suck…they’re not checking your birth certificate, if you’re small and suck…also not checking. Just because the coaches tell you they’re putting the kids that suck, regardless of birthday, on a lower level team to give them “time to develop” doesn’t mean what you think it means. The onus of developing footballers falls on the kid and parents, not the club.

Parents that think the club is going to pump out little college stars with team practice 4 days a week, 14 games, a couple of tournies and showcases must be the same ones convinced that the age cut-off makes any different at all. Just put your head down, put your kids head down and work your asses off…that is the only solution regardless of genetic gifts. The only solution is doing the hard work, even when and especially when nobody is looking.

[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.

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.

Can you imagine? You have two strikers on different teams, same grad year…and a team rostering the both for a show case? Not roasting one for a showcase?

I don’t think you are understanding how much of a disaster grad year is for teams and clubs. Even if only at showcases.

There is ZERO problem with coaches scouting players currently with BY. SY supposedly aligns with college recruiting better…I am not convinced it matters. But grad year being even better is just dumb.

[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.

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.

Can you imagine? You have two strikers on different teams, same grad year…and a team rostering the both for a show case? Not roasting one for a showcase?

I don’t think you are understanding how much of a disaster grad year is for teams and clubs. Even if only at showcases.

There is ZERO problem with coaches scouting players currently with BY. SY supposedly aligns with college recruiting better…I am not convinced it matters. But grad year being even better is just dumb.

Rostering*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes…they’re so good, reliable, that they do to the US to coach u-littles. 😂

[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.

Pass the hope pipe, and I’ll take things that aren’t true for $500 Alex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I love the goalpost shifting to “payoff of HS soccer” 😂

[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.

What do you think happened before? If you have two kids with similar talent fighting for the last spot on a team…the coach picks the one he likes most…they don’t check their birth certificate….and they won’t check the birth certificate in the future either.

This is some weird wishful thinking. Coaches give zero rips on birthdates. They don’t care at u-little, they don’t care at u-tween, and they don’t care even more in the teen years.

If you’re small and can ball, they aren’t checking your birth certificate, if you’re tall and can ball, they’re not checking your birth certificate.

If you’re tall and you suck…they’re not checking your birth certificate, if you’re small and suck…also not checking. Just because the coaches tell you they’re putting the kids that suck, regardless of birthday, on a lower level team to give them “time to develop” doesn’t mean what you think it means. The onus of developing footballers falls on the kid and parents, not the club.

Parents that think the club is going to pump out little college stars with team practice 4 days a week, 14 games, a couple of tournies and showcases must be the same ones convinced that the age cut-off makes any different at all. Just put your head down, put your kids head down and work your asses off…that is the only solution regardless of genetic gifts. The only solution is doing the hard work, even when and especially when nobody is looking.

No you have it wrong. The Blues only practice 2 days per week and we pump out college stars on a regular basis along with national team callups. You have no idea how elite soccer works. Go back in the corner and sit down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yeah, logic is hard.
You’re not trapped. You can play up..but can’t play down. Try to keep up.

[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.

But of course if they’re the stronger player! And Only because they’re the stronger player. And that’s no different than what happens at tryouts now anyway. What quarter a player is born in is irrelevant if s/he is not strong enough.

[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,

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…

Agreed, benches only gonna be players on top teams that can drop down an age group for fall 2026 to make the fall 2026 teams stronger.

[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.

What do you think happened before? If you have two kids with similar talent fighting for the last spot on a team…the coach picks the one he likes most…they don’t check their birth certificate….and they won’t check the birth certificate in the future either.

This is some weird wishful thinking. Coaches give zero rips on birthdates. They don’t care at u-little, they don’t care at u-tween, and they don’t care even more in the teen years.

If you’re small and can ball, they aren’t checking your birth certificate, if you’re tall and can ball, they’re not checking your birth certificate.

If you’re tall and you suck…they’re not checking your birth certificate, if you’re small and suck…also not checking. Just because the coaches tell you they’re putting the kids that suck, regardless of birthday, on a lower level team to give them “time to develop” doesn’t mean what you think it means. The onus of developing footballers falls on the kid and parents, not the club.

Parents that think the club is going to pump out little college stars with team practice 4 days a week, 14 games, a couple of tournies and showcases must be the same ones convinced that the age cut-off makes any different at all. Just put your head down, put your kids head down and work your asses off…that is the only solution regardless of genetic gifts. The only solution is doing the hard work, even when and especially when nobody is looking.

RAE reckoning coming.

[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.

But of course if they’re the stronger player! And Only because they’re the stronger player. And that’s no different than what happens at tryouts now anyway. What quarter a player is born in is irrelevant if s/he is not strong enough.

Duh, teams feel that they almost 2 years to readjust their teams to be older come Fall 2026. The smart ones want two tryout cycles to adjust. If birthdates didn't matter for players on their teams, they could change to SY right up to tryouts in the spring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I love the goalpost shifting to “payoff of HS soccer” 😂

Goalposts shifted from where to where for whom? Your comment is unclear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The payoff is hard to see but cumulative -- at least if you listen to anyone who's Q3-Q4 now. I agree playing with slightly older players now could be beneficial for some. But those who are just starting or who start when the cutoff changes would stand to the most to gain unless those leagues cease to exist.

[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.

What do you think happened before? If you have two kids with similar talent fighting for the last spot on a team…the coach picks the one he likes most…they don’t check their birth certificate….and they won’t check the birth certificate in the future either.

This is some weird wishful thinking. Coaches give zero rips on birthdates. They don’t care at u-little, they don’t care at u-tween, and they don’t care even more in the teen years.

If you’re small and can ball, they aren’t checking your birth certificate, if you’re tall and can ball, they’re not checking your birth certificate.

If you’re tall and you suck…they’re not checking your birth certificate, if you’re small and suck…also not checking. Just because the coaches tell you they’re putting the kids that suck, regardless of birthday, on a lower level team to give them “time to develop” doesn’t mean what you think it means. The onus of developing footballers falls on the kid and parents, not the club.

Parents that think the club is going to pump out little college stars with team practice 4 days a week, 14 games, a couple of tournies and showcases must be the same ones convinced that the age cut-off makes any different at all. Just put your head down, put your kids head down and work your asses off…that is the only solution regardless of genetic gifts. The only solution is doing the hard work, even when and especially when nobody is looking.

RAE reckoning coming.

Theere is 20+ years of documentation that says this poster is dead wrong.