ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oops
MLS Next just made a collaboration announcement for tournaments and development and coaching education etc with other leagues, but not ECNL

MLSN needs to establish themselves in every state to compete with ECNL, this looks like a path towards that.

The top league MLSN needs to compete with a secondary league?

They don't have near the registered players that ECNL has and don't serve every state, not sure what your argument is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oops
MLS Next just made a collaboration announcement for tournaments and development and coaching education etc with other leagues, but not ECNL

MLSN needs to establish themselves in every state to compete with ECNL, this looks like a path towards that.

The top league MLSN needs to compete with a secondary league?

They don't have near the registered players that ECNL has and don't serve every state, not sure what your argument is?

Oh, you're going with quantity vs quality

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oops
MLS Next just made a collaboration announcement for tournaments and development and coaching education etc with other leagues, but not ECNL

MLSN needs to establish themselves in every state to compete with ECNL, this looks like a path towards that.

The top league MLSN needs to compete with a secondary league?

They don't have near the registered players that ECNL has and don't serve every state, not sure what your argument is?

Oh, you're going with quantity vs quality

I thought that was the point of pay to play. I am sure MLSN expanding there league platform is just altruistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oops
MLS Next just made a collaboration announcement for tournaments and development and coaching education etc with other leagues, but not ECNL

MLSN needs to establish themselves in every state to compete with ECNL, this looks like a path towards that.

The top league MLSN needs to compete with a secondary league?

Weaponizing the switch to SY has begun with MLSN making the first move. You are a step too slow US Soccer's Mike C.

MLSN wants to get as many clubs aligned towards BY as possible. Hence them pushing the federation to delay allowing leagues to go SY.

Forces ECNL, etc. hand to do some Q3/4 waivers for next year for all age groups to compete for the mid tier teams and expand RL before it is too late.

Well, MLSN's mid tier half year league, NAL and a few scooped up EDP teams get the chance to pay for the right to go to MLSN tournaments and fund the deficit that MLSN academies have been running.

Start an elite league, keep adding lower level teams, close because of sustained losses, and rinse and repeat. Amazing how short the cycle is for youth soccer.

[Anonymous]

I read where the MLSN expansion league will allow player to play for their high school teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read where the MLSN expansion league will allow player to play for their high school teams.

NAL already only has half a year season for HS kids. So if they stay BY, they will keep the 8th grade trap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oops
MLS Next just made a collaboration announcement for tournaments and development and coaching education etc with other leagues, but not ECNL

MLSN needs to establish themselves in every state to compete with ECNL, this looks like a path towards that.

The top league MLSN needs to compete with a secondary league?

Weaponizing the switch to SY has begun with MLSN making the first move. You are a step too slow US Soccer's Mike C.

MLSN wants to get as many clubs aligned towards BY as possible. Hence them pushing the federation to delay allowing leagues to go SY.

Forces ECNL, etc. hand to do some Q3/4 waivers for next year for all age groups to compete for the mid tier teams and expand RL before it is too late.

Well, MLSN's mid tier half year league, NAL and a few scooped up EDP teams get the chance to pay for the right to go to MLSN tournaments and fund the deficit that MLSN academies have been running.

Start an elite league, keep adding lower level teams, close because of sustained losses, and rinse and repeat. Amazing how short the cycle is for youth soccer.

Mike Cullina is on the Board of Directors for the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF), as well as being the CEO of US Club Soccer. MLS Next is under the USSF (as is US Club Soccer). Not sure why he would weaponize anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oops
MLS Next just made a collaboration announcement for tournaments and development and coaching education etc with other leagues, but not ECNL

MLSN needs to establish themselves in every state to compete with ECNL, this looks like a path towards that.

The top league MLSN needs to compete with a secondary league?

Weaponizing the switch to SY has begun with MLSN making the first move. You are a step too slow US Soccer's Mike C.

MLSN wants to get as many clubs aligned towards BY as possible. Hence them pushing the federation to delay allowing leagues to go SY.

Forces ECNL, etc. hand to do some Q3/4 waivers for next year for all age groups to compete for the mid tier teams and expand RL before it is too late.

Well, MLSN's mid tier half year league, NAL and a few scooped up EDP teams get the chance to pay for the right to go to MLSN tournaments and fund the deficit that MLSN academies have been running.

Start an elite league, keep adding lower level teams, close because of sustained losses, and rinse and repeat. Amazing how short the cycle is for youth soccer.

Mike Cullina is on the Board of Directors for the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF), as well as being the CEO of US Club Soccer. MLS Next is under the USSF (as is US Club Soccer). Not sure why he would weaponize anything.

Just more BY parents doing mental gymnastics…

[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:

Anonymous wrote:No one said trapped players are doomed. The statement was made that BY is systematically dysfunctional for q4 and some q3 players during certain periods of their soccer career.

Don’t waste time arguing with the BY parents who are so blinded by the thought of having to compete with older kids. SY is coming they get one more year and then the party is over for most of those kids.

Isn't someone always older and someone always younger?
Won't SY have a 11 month difference in ages just like BY?

How does this relate to the PP's comment?

We are all BY parents today

Why would people who prefer BY be afraid of competing against older kids, when so many of them want their kids to play up?

Because they are really seeking bragging rights and recognition, not an extra challenge. If you adjust the age group to SY, they are playing with older kids but viewed as "with age." If they play with the same kids across a group divide, that comes with the higher status label of "playing up." Like many of the toxic elements of youth sports, it's all about status-seeking, mostly by the parents.

I love all these assumptions 100% predicated on a false fact that soccer skills, performance, competitiveness are all dictated by birth months

There are many strong q3 and q4 players out there and lots of weak q1 and q2

Also several kids playing up a year.

It all washes out

Are you aware of research showing that it all washes out and birth month has no impact on youth development or are you going with a gut feeling of a random parent of a kid?

The research is what you see on the fields every weekend at ECNL and lower levels of competition.
The differences in average players by birth months isn't that significant when you add decent q3 and q4 to the mix.

RAE at MLS Next and is more pronounced because the best January/February early bloomers are way ahead of November/December late bloomers

Can you point to research showing a relatively even distribution of birth months across top teams at clubs, ECNL, EDP, GA, MLSN, etc.? I am not sure how you can watch a youth soccer game and know everyone's birth month. That is a superpower. Useless, but a superpower nonetheless. And watch the games of "average" teams and ultimately make the assumption that drop out rates are not correlated with birth month.

Your first mistake is including MLSN in this madness
Your second mistake is not knowing I'm not saying I know the birth months

I'm saying the overall mediocre level of competition isn't impacted much at ECNL levels by a few months separation

Nobody is making the argument that going from BY to SY will increase the level of play in any league as ECNL and MLSN non-academies will still be what they are. Places for pay to play clubs where politics rule the day to call home.

It will change who are on the teams, who is starting, who plays what position, who is motivated to work harder to reach another level and who is lined up to play college/pro. And all of this will be a big deal at the younger ages and much less of a big deal at the older ages.

You should write for the Hallmark Channel

The USSF made the change from SY to BY so the best players would be different. It worked.

SY or BY
The best players with the talent, discipline, skills and put in the hard work consistently will still be the best.

Totally true. The benefit to SY is that those great players born Sept - Dec will actually get to play in the fall of their 8th grade (assuming soccer is a fall sport) and spring of their 12th grade. If the point is to play, SY is the only system that benefits everyone.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one said trapped players are doomed. The statement was made that BY is systematically dysfunctional for q4 and some q3 players during certain periods of their soccer career.

Don’t waste time arguing with the BY parents who are so blinded by the thought of having to compete with older kids. SY is coming they get one more year and then the party is over for most of those kids.

Isn't someone always older and someone always younger?
Won't SY have a 11 month difference in ages just like BY?

How does this relate to the PP's comment?

We are all BY parents today

Why would people who prefer BY be afraid of competing against older kids, when so many of them want their kids to play up?

Because they are really seeking bragging rights and recognition, not an extra challenge. If you adjust the age group to SY, they are playing with older kids but viewed as "with age." If they play with the same kids across a group divide, that comes with the higher status label of "playing up." Like many of the toxic elements of youth sports, it's all about status-seeking, mostly by the parents.

I love all these assumptions 100% predicated on a false fact that soccer skills, performance, competitiveness are all dictated by birth months

There are many strong q3 and q4 players out there and lots of weak q1 and q2

Also several kids playing up a year.

It all washes out

Are you aware of research showing that it all washes out and birth month has no impact on youth development or are you going with a gut feeling of a random parent of a kid?

The research is what you see on the fields every weekend at ECNL and lower levels of competition.
The differences in average players by birth months isn't that significant when you add decent q3 and q4 to the mix.

RAE at MLS Next and is more pronounced because the best January/February early bloomers are way ahead of November/December late bloomers

Can you point to research showing a relatively even distribution of birth months across top teams at clubs, ECNL, EDP, GA, MLSN, etc.? I am not sure how you can watch a youth soccer game and know everyone's birth month. That is a superpower. Useless, but a superpower nonetheless. And watch the games of "average" teams and ultimately make the assumption that drop out rates are not correlated with birth month.

Your first mistake is including MLSN in this madness
Your second mistake is not knowing I'm not saying I know the birth months

I'm saying the overall mediocre level of competition isn't impacted much at ECNL levels by a few months separation

Nobody is making the argument that going from BY to SY will increase the level of play in any league as ECNL and MLSN non-academies will still be what they are. Places for pay to play clubs where politics rule the day to call home.

It will change who are on the teams, who is starting, who plays what position, who is motivated to work harder to reach another level and who is lined up to play college/pro. And all of this will be a big deal at the younger ages and much less of a big deal at the older ages.

You should write for the Hallmark Channel

The USSF made the change from SY to BY so the best players would be different. It worked.

SY or BY
The best players with the talent, discipline, skills and put in the hard work consistently will still be the best.

Totally true. The benefit to SY is that those great players born Sept - Dec will actually get to play in the fall of their 8th grade (assuming soccer is a fall sport) and spring of their 12th grade. If the point is to play, SY is the only system that benefits everyone.

If you're truly top tier and serious, the schedule of the masses doesn't deter you from putting in your work for your development

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one said trapped players are doomed. The statement was made that BY is systematically dysfunctional for q4 and some q3 players during certain periods of their soccer career.

Don’t waste time arguing with the BY parents who are so blinded by the thought of having to compete with older kids. SY is coming they get one more year and then the party is over for most of those kids.

Isn't someone always older and someone always younger?
Won't SY have a 11 month difference in ages just like BY?

How does this relate to the PP's comment?

We are all BY parents today

Why would people who prefer BY be afraid of competing against older kids, when so many of them want their kids to play up?

Because they are really seeking bragging rights and recognition, not an extra challenge. If you adjust the age group to SY, they are playing with older kids but viewed as "with age." If they play with the same kids across a group divide, that comes with the higher status label of "playing up." Like many of the toxic elements of youth sports, it's all about status-seeking, mostly by the parents.

I love all these assumptions 100% predicated on a false fact that soccer skills, performance, competitiveness are all dictated by birth months

There are many strong q3 and q4 players out there and lots of weak q1 and q2

Also several kids playing up a year.

It all washes out

Are you aware of research showing that it all washes out and birth month has no impact on youth development or are you going with a gut feeling of a random parent of a kid?

The research is what you see on the fields every weekend at ECNL and lower levels of competition.
The differences in average players by birth months isn't that significant when you add decent q3 and q4 to the mix.

RAE at MLS Next and is more pronounced because the best January/February early bloomers are way ahead of November/December late bloomers

Can you point to research showing a relatively even distribution of birth months across top teams at clubs, ECNL, EDP, GA, MLSN, etc.? I am not sure how you can watch a youth soccer game and know everyone's birth month. That is a superpower. Useless, but a superpower nonetheless. And watch the games of "average" teams and ultimately make the assumption that drop out rates are not correlated with birth month.

Your first mistake is including MLSN in this madness
Your second mistake is not knowing I'm not saying I know the birth months

I'm saying the overall mediocre level of competition isn't impacted much at ECNL levels by a few months separation

Nobody is making the argument that going from BY to SY will increase the level of play in any league as ECNL and MLSN non-academies will still be what they are. Places for pay to play clubs where politics rule the day to call home.

It will change who are on the teams, who is starting, who plays what position, who is motivated to work harder to reach another level and who is lined up to play college/pro. And all of this will be a big deal at the younger ages and much less of a big deal at the older ages.

You should write for the Hallmark Channel

The USSF made the change from SY to BY so the best players would be different. It worked.

SY or BY
The best players with the talent, discipline, skills and put in the hard work consistently will still be the best.

Totally true. The benefit to SY is that those great players born Sept - Dec will actually get to play in the fall of their 8th grade (assuming soccer is a fall sport) and spring of their 12th grade. If the point is to play, SY is the only system that benefits everyone.

If you're truly top tier and serious, the schedule of the masses doesn't deter you from putting in your work for your development

You become top tier by being chosen on the top teams at a very young age, generally because you are on the older age of the age cutoff and then you become motivated to put the work in. So cutoff change will have minimal impacts on those in HS already (but could change who gets recruited) and will have a huge impact on those in about 5th grade and below. The middle will be interesting.

[Anonymous]

Either way my kid will be trapped as our state has an Aug 1 cut off (if Sep holds true). Seems like it would be even worse for kids like mine from a trapped perspective to stick with ECNL. MLS would at least bypass his trapped year or put him in a larger trapped year group if they still will go by BY. Interesting predicament

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Either way my kid will be trapped as our state has an Aug 1 cut off (if Sep holds true). Seems like it would be even worse for kids like mine from a trapped perspective to stick with ECNL. MLS would at least bypass his trapped year or put him in a larger trapped year group if they still will go by BY. Interesting predicament

If you believe the podcast, it sounded like he preferred September because it has fewer trapped players and the goal is to find a solution for the majority. Did I miss something? How are you thinking it is August?

[Anonymous]

It is September 1 according to the podcast, you’re right. However my state’s school cutoff is August 1 so anyone born in that state in August will still be trapped.

[Anonymous]

I would think August 1 would envelope the majority but I am not worried about it much. I just found it interesting that MLS may work better for kids in states that I’m talking about (I think there are 10)