ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok…so the ecnl director of the u17 team told his team that the trapped players are staying where they are and the current Q1/2 are going to u19…is this for 2025?

here is the deal:
currently how US Soccer/ECNL is setup for 2024/2025 season:
U16 - 2027/2028 graduation (10th & 9th grade) Birth year 2009
U17 - 2026/2027 graduation (11th and 10th grade) Birth year 2008
U18/19 - 2025/2026 graduation (12th & 11th grade) Birth year 2007

next year if changes for 2025/2026 season to School/Grad Year:
U17 (11th grade) - 2027s from last years U17 team stay and combine with any 2027's from U16 team- all players going into 11th grade for 2025/2026 season
U19 (12th grade)- 2026's moved up from last years U17 team and combine with any current U19 players already on team going into 12th grade

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:College football is notorious for sending Q4 kids to JUCO. Its also why they have redshirt years. Vast majority of Q2,3,4 kids are not ready to play.

This is not the same. First, American football is still recruited out of a HS pathway. Birth year and SY have less effect. It’s an eligibility window of 3-4 years. Not 12 rolling months.

Second, JUCO isn’t a Q4 destination, it’s an academic portfolio doesn’t match the athletic portfolio situation. If someone told you it was due to birth month…it was probably a soccer parent selling you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m here to understand the communications, if any from ECNL directly. Has anyone received anything directly from their ECNL Director? Do you think any chance ECNL will still try to proceed with 25/26 implementation? I guess more info to come early March after that large meeting/conference….

my ecnl director communicated to my entire U17 girls team, which has 13 of 16 trapped players which are currently in 10th grade, grade 2027 that 100% ECNL were moving to grad year and that the 13 2027's would stay at U17 instead of moving up to u18/u19 like it is now and the 3 2026's 11th graders on her team would move up to the U19 as expected.

😂 they’re not moving to grad year….USSF said explicitly they’re give 3 options. Grad year isn’t one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

RAE Reckoning?🤣

“How dare you be born before my child, in 2026 the tables will turn, and my child will be better because of new age cutoffs…beware! Your reckoning is coming for having a child born before mine!!!”

You’re crazy

Going to be a bunch of Q3-4 players finding better clubs around this time next season in preparation for Fall 2026 also. First mover advantage.

Lmao. You don’t just leave a 2nd/3rd team and become a first team player pal. The stink carries over bud.

No one is going to leave to position themselves for something that’s 2 years away.

Depends on the level? If you’re on an elite RL team for a club you can usually goto most clubs and make their top team.

But yes a switch to SY isn’t going to take a premier level kid and make them an ECNL star players.

But it will elevate and lower the level of the players who go from a starter 2010 ECNL player to now a 2010/2011 player.

Will also make it more difficult for a 2011 sub ECNL player to get a starting spot.

Totally get the logic behind your point of view. It’s wrong though. The date change doesn’t “elevate” anyone. Everything is earned. And chances are, if your kid is on an RL team, they’re not getting a look on a NL team unless they were playing up a couple of years and would be looking to play at age on NL.

Coaches and clubs do use team placement as a heuristic for future potential - even if they claim otherwise and even if it’s short sighted. Why do you think parents fight so hard and team chase? Breaking out of the minor leagues is extremely hard to do.

"Everything is earned" and claiming that coaches/clubs are good predicting soccer futures of 6 years don't match with youth soccer reality in the DMV. Kids get promoted all the time when they switch clubs.

That’s a different argument. And arguably not inconsistent with the PP. Age cutoffs are not the same as team shopping / chasing - PP pointed out that people do that in order to get better opportunities. But an Age Cutoff isn’t going to be a magic pill where kids gain skills they’re lacking and displace others overnight.

I do think in the classic leagues and similar “super-recs” the age change will have more
of an impact. But that is largely because it’s comparing suck to suck and of course you take the slightly bigger / faster suck to the slightly smaller / slower suck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

RAE Reckoning?🤣

“How dare you be born before my child, in 2026 the tables will turn, and my child will be better because of new age cutoffs…beware! Your reckoning is coming for having a child born before mine!!!”

You’re crazy

Going to be a bunch of Q3-4 players finding better clubs around this time next season in preparation for Fall 2026 also. First mover advantage.

Lmao. You don’t just leave a 2nd/3rd team and become a first team player pal. The stink carries over bud.

No one is going to leave to position themselves for something that’s 2 years away.

Depends on the level? If you’re on an elite RL team for a club you can usually goto most clubs and make their top team.

But yes a switch to SY isn’t going to take a premier level kid and make them an ECNL star players.

But it will elevate and lower the level of the players who go from a starter 2010 ECNL player to now a 2010/2011 player.

Will also make it more difficult for a 2011 sub ECNL player to get a starting spot.

Totally get the logic behind your point of view. It’s wrong though. The date change doesn’t “elevate” anyone. Everything is earned. And chances are, if your kid is on an RL team, they’re not getting a look on a NL team unless they were playing up a couple of years and would be looking to play at age on NL.

Coaches and clubs do use team placement as a heuristic for future potential - even if they claim otherwise and even if it’s short sighted. Why do you think parents fight so hard and team chase? Breaking out of the minor leagues is extremely hard to do.

"Everything is earned" and claiming that coaches/clubs are good predicting soccer futures of 6 years don't match with youth soccer reality in the DMV. Kids get promoted all the time when they switch clubs.

That’s a different argument. And arguably not inconsistent with the PP. Age cutoffs are not the same as team shopping / chasing - PP pointed out that people do that in order to get better opportunities. But an Age Cutoff isn’t going to be a magic pill where kids gain skills they’re lacking and displace others overnight.

I do think in the classic leagues and similar “super-recs” the age change will have more
of an impact. But that is largely because it’s comparing suck to suck and of course you take the slightly bigger / faster suck to the slightly smaller / slower suck.

The age cutoffs are a huge boast for those going down a year "relative" to the players not going down a year.

The only argument that players going down a year doesn't matter would be if kids don't get stronger, faster, know the game better and improve their skills in one year. That would be a silly argument to make of course as older teams routinely beat older teams.

Making the argument that kids don't get better every year at soccer and from maturation seems based on fear of losing spots for Q1-2 kids not based in reality. Why do you think a couple of posters are so worried about grad year instead of school year? They know being older is a big advantage "relative" to the other players.

[Anonymous]

After an initial general email about the age change discussions, our ECNL director has not communicated anything about a possible change or no change for 2025 OR 2026, while other directors have communicated no change until 2026. Our director is tight with board members. I’m waiting for that meeting at the end of Feb and expect a waiver or some sort of a concession for ecnl trapped players in 2025.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m here to understand the communications, if any from ECNL directly. Has anyone received anything directly from their ECNL Director? Do you think any chance ECNL will still try to proceed with 25/26 implementation? I guess more info to come early March after that large meeting/conference….

my ecnl director communicated to my entire U17 girls team, which has 13 of 16 trapped players which are currently in 10th grade, grade 2027 that 100% ECNL were moving to grad year and that the 13 2027's would stay at U17 instead of moving up to u18/u19 like it is now and the 3 2026's 11th graders on her team would move up to the U19 as expected.

😂 they’re not moving to grad year….USSF said explicitly they’re give 3 options. Grad year isn’t one of them.

Showcases are going to be grad year. So be ready for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After an initial general email about the age change discussions, our ECNL director has not communicated anything about a possible change or no change for 2025 OR 2026, while other directors have communicated no change until 2026. Our director is tight with board members. I’m waiting for that meeting at the end of Feb and expect a waiver or some sort of a concession for ecnl trapped players in 2025.

There is a chance we see a waiver system similar to MLSN biobanding but with different stipulations. But also a chance we see no change for League play but allow showcases to use players based off SY.

It will then be the clubs job to mix everyone up for a showcase if that’s what the families want to do. Nothing will be mandated just more relaxed rules that will allow directors to make more promises to families. Buckle up!

[Anonymous]

So now that we know no changes at all until 2026, what should we talk about?

[Anonymous]

We don’t know that…ECNL has yet to speak

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We don’t know that…ECNL has yet to speak

They have….through US Club. They aren’t changing anything.

You Ecnl hats should pressure your clubs to give you answers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t know that…ECNL has yet to speak

They have….through US Club. They aren’t changing anything.

You Ecnl hats should pressure your clubs to give you answers

we did and our ecnl club said we were changing to school year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t know that…ECNL has yet to speak

They have….through US Club. They aren’t changing anything.

You Ecnl hats should pressure your clubs to give you answers

we did and our ecnl club said we were changing to school year.

Which club. Prove it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We don’t know that…ECNL has yet to speak

Why would Ecnl do anything else? It is over. Rando Ecnl directors quoted here have not a clue.

[Anonymous]

Are people even considering the amount of age correct player parents GY would piss off if ECNL allowed it for showcases?

Not only the teammates that get benched so an older kid can play down. Also the other team would lose because an older kid is playing down.

And finals seeding is determined by showcase wins and losses.

I hope ECNL does allow GY at showcases. But only because I know it will cause insane chaos and I want to see ECNL fail.