ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Relevant to this discussion: https://www.buzzsprout.com/874396/episodes/16410170-us-youth-soccer-state-of-the-union-with-skip-gilbert

USYS CEO talking about how they are going SY and are just working states by state to figure out what the want to do and will release plans end of feb, early march. I think this and last weeks ECNL podcast effectively ends the discussion on "will they or wont they" and USYS is a big one. At least where I leave, even all the pre-mls-next U-littles are playing in USYS leagues.

That is what the MLSN fanboy is missing, EVERY youth soccer player starts with USYS or AYSO.

+1

1000% this. Every U-little kid is going to be playing in a SY league starting in 2026. I dont think that changes anything for MLSN, which may still stay birth year for their older kids, but every little kid team is headed to school year and should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We actually still are waiting for the results of birth year because it went into effect in 2017. That’s 8 years ago only lol. So in effect we really need to examine how our U18 and U17 teams have been performing at a national level? Those kids are the only ones that have only experienced an entire playing career within the birth year format.

That’s what makes this change strange imo because we don’t know the results yet.

Anyone understand what I’m saying?

I understand and you would be correct if this change was only about our national teams, the decision to switch to birth year was made unilaterally and unsupported by the majority of youth soccer. From listening to Skip Gilbert the decision was made by folks that only had the European model experience, the US is very different in that our government doesn't subsidize our youth sports. It was a square peg in a round hole.

Most of the Europe does BY, because that is how their school system is set up, by birth-year. Countries like England, that do it Sept 1- August 31, also organize their soccer programs accordingly. US switched our soccer to BY, but our school year is still August 1- July 31 (generally)- so created a mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Relevant to this discussion: https://www.buzzsprout.com/874396/episodes/16410170-us-youth-soccer-state-of-the-union-with-skip-gilbert

USYS CEO talking about how they are going SY and are just working states by state to figure out what the want to do and will release plans end of feb, early march. I think this and last weeks ECNL podcast effectively ends the discussion on "will they or wont they" and USYS is a big one. At least where I leave, even all the pre-mls-next U-littles are playing in USYS leagues.

That is what the MLSN fanboy is missing, EVERY youth soccer player starts with USYS or AYSO.

+1

1000% this. Every U-little kid is going to be playing in a SY league starting in 2026. I dont think that changes anything for MLSN, which may still stay birth year for their older kids, but every little kid team is headed to school year and should.

Scouting 11-12 year olds for BY will be too late for MLSN to get top Q1 players playing at their peak.

However MLSN non academies will be fine as long as they have a few years to pick Q1 kids, encourage Q1 kids to improve and then figure out which ones are the better ones. They already found there solution by having NAL going down to U11 and by locking in a few smaller leagues to stay BY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Relevant to this discussion: https://www.buzzsprout.com/874396/episodes/16410170-us-youth-soccer-state-of-the-union-with-skip-gilbert

USYS CEO talking about how they are going SY and are just working states by state to figure out what the want to do and will release plans end of feb, early march. I think this and last weeks ECNL podcast effectively ends the discussion on "will they or wont they" and USYS is a big one. At least where I leave, even all the pre-mls-next U-littles are playing in USYS leagues.

That is what the MLSN fanboy is missing, EVERY youth soccer player starts with USYS or AYSO.

+1

1000% this. Every U-little kid is going to be playing in a SY league starting in 2026. I dont think that changes anything for MLSN, which may still stay birth year for their older kids, but every little kid team is headed to school year and should.

Scouting 11-12 year olds for BY will be too late for MLSN to get top Q1 players playing at their peak.

However MLSN non academies will be fine as long as they have a few years to pick Q1 kids, encourage Q1 kids to improve and then figure out which ones are the better ones. They already found there solution by having NAL going down to U11 and by locking in a few smaller leagues to stay BY.

The problem will be: all of the January-April birthdays will not be chosen for 'all stars', or club soccer when they are young. So most will not enter club soccer at all. So yes, scouting for BY kids at the age of 12....there will be few players to choose from..and most will be players on the B team... similar to the situation for August-December birthdays now.

(Although if the BY fanatics are to be believed- RAE is not real- so it will have no effect.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Relevant to this discussion: https://www.buzzsprout.com/874396/episodes/16410170-us-youth-soccer-state-of-the-union-with-skip-gilbert

USYS CEO talking about how they are going SY and are just working states by state to figure out what the want to do and will release plans end of feb, early march. I think this and last weeks ECNL podcast effectively ends the discussion on "will they or wont they" and USYS is a big one. At least where I leave, even all the pre-mls-next U-littles are playing in USYS leagues.

That is what the MLSN fanboy is missing, EVERY youth soccer player starts with USYS or AYSO.

+1

1000% this. Every U-little kid is going to be playing in a SY league starting in 2026. I dont think that changes anything for MLSN, which may still stay birth year for their older kids, but every little kid team is headed to school year and should.

Scouting 11-12 year olds for BY will be too late for MLSN to get top Q1 players playing at their peak.

However MLSN non academies will be fine as long as they have a few years to pick Q1 kids, encourage Q1 kids to improve and then figure out which ones are the better ones. They already found there solution by having NAL going down to U11 and by locking in a few smaller leagues to stay BY.

Where you get the trash fact that all players come from q1 birth months?

[Anonymous]

Are you people insane?
If lazy coaches are picking the fastest, biggest, strongest, longest ball booters, they don't look at the birth month

It just so happens many of them will fall in early months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We actually still are waiting for the results of birth year because it went into effect in 2017. That’s 8 years ago only lol. So in effect we really need to examine how our U18 and U17 teams have been performing at a national level? Those kids are the only ones that have only experienced an entire playing career within the birth year format.

That’s what makes this change strange imo because we don’t know the results yet.

Anyone understand what I’m saying?

I understand and you would be correct if this change was only about our national teams, the decision to switch to birth year was made unilaterally and unsupported by the majority of youth soccer. From listening to Skip Gilbert the decision was made by folks that only had the European model experience, the US is very different in that our government doesn't subsidize our youth sports. It was a square peg in a round hole.

Interesting

Anyhow...lets keep an eye on the current crop of USA U17 and U18 national team players...this change back to school year means nothing now because at this point they are professionals. Their results with the national team when they are in their 20s will prove wether or not the birth year system worked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We actually still are waiting for the results of birth year because it went into effect in 2017. That’s 8 years ago only lol. So in effect we really need to examine how our U18 and U17 teams have been performing at a national level? Those kids are the only ones that have only experienced an entire playing career within the birth year format.

That’s what makes this change strange imo because we don’t know the results yet.

Anyone understand what I’m saying?

I understand and you would be correct if this change was only about our national teams, the decision to switch to birth year was made unilaterally and unsupported by the majority of youth soccer. From listening to Skip Gilbert the decision was made by folks that only had the European model experience, the US is very different in that our government doesn't subsidize our youth sports. It was a square peg in a round hole.

Interesting

Anyhow...lets keep an eye on the current crop of USA U17 and U18 national team players...this change back to school year means nothing now because at this point they are professionals. Their results with the national team when they are in their 20s will prove wether or not the birth year system worked.

It's relevant and should be looked at. Not sure about the 17's and 18's but the 19's beat Uruguay and Argentina over the summer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We actually still are waiting for the results of birth year because it went into effect in 2017. That’s 8 years ago only lol. So in effect we really need to examine how our U18 and U17 teams have been performing at a national level? Those kids are the only ones that have only experienced an entire playing career within the birth year format.

That’s what makes this change strange imo because we don’t know the results yet.

Anyone understand what I’m saying?

I understand and you would be correct if this change was only about our national teams, the decision to switch to birth year was made unilaterally and unsupported by the majority of youth soccer. From listening to Skip Gilbert the decision was made by folks that only had the European model experience, the US is very different in that our government doesn't subsidize our youth sports. It was a square peg in a round hole.

Interesting

Anyhow...lets keep an eye on the current crop of USA U17 and U18 national team players...this change back to school year means nothing now because at this point they are professionals. Their results with the national team when they are in their 20s will prove wether or not the birth year system worked.

It's relevant and should be looked at. Not sure about the 17's and 18's but the 19's beat Uruguay and Argentina over the summer.

How in your mind does changing the cutoff year work to make players better?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAE exists in any year long system, period.

The switch to SY does not fix, address, or otherwise lessen the impact of RAE.

All, ALL IT DOES, is theoretically encourage participation for younger years that will hopefully result in more players later on AND IT FIXES TRAPPED PLAYERS, for the most part with some possible outliers.

The lower participation is theorized because not only are kids split across grades, but, the younger kids also hit with the RAE. By moving the date, the kids at the bad side of RAE will at least be with their classmates.

Youth (and future national) soccer in the USA is doomed if ‘playing with friends and classmates’ has become a main criteria for soccer development.

New term
Playdate Soccer

Again, at the u-littles it is, in order to increase the total pool, so that the vanishingly small number of actually incredibly talented kids have a bigger chance of sticking around.

Regardless, the ending of trapped players is, to me, the best part.

The month of your birth does not determine talent. The player pool is not going to increase because of this. Talented competitive players are not interested in watered down playdate soccer.

And trapped players will still exist no matter the cut off. This is reality.

Talented, competitive, young athletes are certainly interested in playing with friends. Which is why some now leave soccer at a young age (even though they dominate in soccer) to play other sports they dominate in (such as basketball, volleyball, gymnastics, swimming, softball, etc.) where they get to play with friends in their grade while dominating in those sports, too.

While there will continue to be some trapped players, there will be much less of them.

And for the BY fans, even though the leagues may change to SY, the national teams will continue to be BY. So all the current Q1 kids will remain in Q1 when they go on to play for the national teams.

Take a look at the rosters of highly competitive teams (those that advance to playoffs or finals for example) - these players come from various areas and are not in the same schools or neighborhoods even. Competitive players are not looking for playdate soccer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Relevant to this discussion: https://www.buzzsprout.com/874396/episodes/16410170-us-youth-soccer-state-of-the-union-with-skip-gilbert

USYS CEO talking about how they are going SY and are just working states by state to figure out what the want to do and will release plans end of feb, early march. I think this and last weeks ECNL podcast effectively ends the discussion on "will they or wont they" and USYS is a big one. At least where I leave, even all the pre-mls-next U-littles are playing in USYS leagues.

That is what the MLSN fanboy is missing, EVERY youth soccer player starts with USYS or AYSO.

+1

1000% this. Every U-little kid is going to be playing in a SY league starting in 2026. I dont think that changes anything for MLSN, which may still stay birth year for their older kids, but every little kid team is headed to school year and should.

Scouting 11-12 year olds for BY will be too late for MLSN to get top Q1 players playing at their peak.

However MLSN non academies will be fine as long as they have a few years to pick Q1 kids, encourage Q1 kids to improve and then figure out which ones are the better ones. They already found there solution by having NAL going down to U11 and by locking in a few smaller leagues to stay BY.

Where you get the trash fact that all players come from q1 birth months?

Paraphrasing here, Lazy coaches picking the fastest, biggest, strongest, longest ball booters who happen to fall in early months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAE exists in any year long system, period.

The switch to SY does not fix, address, or otherwise lessen the impact of RAE.

All, ALL IT DOES, is theoretically encourage participation for younger years that will hopefully result in more players later on AND IT FIXES TRAPPED PLAYERS, for the most part with some possible outliers.

The lower participation is theorized because not only are kids split across grades, but, the younger kids also hit with the RAE. By moving the date, the kids at the bad side of RAE will at least be with their classmates.

Youth (and future national) soccer in the USA is doomed if ‘playing with friends and classmates’ has become a main criteria for soccer development.

New term
Playdate Soccer

Again, at the u-littles it is, in order to increase the total pool, so that the vanishingly small number of actually incredibly talented kids have a bigger chance of sticking around.

Regardless, the ending of trapped players is, to me, the best part.

The month of your birth does not determine talent. The player pool is not going to increase because of this. Talented competitive players are not interested in watered down playdate soccer.

And trapped players will still exist no matter the cut off. This is reality.

Talented, competitive, young athletes are certainly interested in playing with friends. Which is why some now leave soccer at a young age (even though they dominate in soccer) to play other sports they dominate in (such as basketball, volleyball, gymnastics, swimming, softball, etc.) where they get to play with friends in their grade while dominating in those sports, too.

While there will continue to be some trapped players, there will be much less of them.

And for the BY fans, even though the leagues may change to SY, the national teams will continue to be BY. So all the current Q1 kids will remain in Q1 when they go on to play for the national teams.

Take a look at the rosters of highly competitive teams (those that advance to playoffs or finals for example) - these players come from various areas and are not in the same schools or neighborhoods even. Competitive players are not looking for playdate soccer.

Ok. So why not switch to SY? Competitive kids, you argue don't care if they play with friends. So changing the teams wont hurt anything. RAE is not real, so it wont effect the Q1Q2 kids.

And changing to SY will increase at least numbers of rec players...who can go and support US Soccer.

So what is the opposition to SY or benefit of BY?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We actually still are waiting for the results of birth year because it went into effect in 2017. That’s 8 years ago only lol. So in effect we really need to examine how our U18 and U17 teams have been performing at a national level? Those kids are the only ones that have only experienced an entire playing career within the birth year format.

That’s what makes this change strange imo because we don’t know the results yet.

Anyone understand what I’m saying?

I understand and you would be correct if this change was only about our national teams, the decision to switch to birth year was made unilaterally and unsupported by the majority of youth soccer. From listening to Skip Gilbert the decision was made by folks that only had the European model experience, the US is very different in that our government doesn't subsidize our youth sports. It was a square peg in a round hole.

Interesting

Anyhow...lets keep an eye on the current crop of USA U17 and U18 national team players...this change back to school year means nothing now because at this point they are professionals. Their results with the national team when they are in their 20s will prove wether or not the birth year system worked.

That will not be a valid assessment because development in US soccer is dreadful compared to European countries. We'll be revisiting this argument in another decade and changing back using the same arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAE exists in any year long system, period.

The switch to SY does not fix, address, or otherwise lessen the impact of RAE.

All, ALL IT DOES, is theoretically encourage participation for younger years that will hopefully result in more players later on AND IT FIXES TRAPPED PLAYERS, for the most part with some possible outliers.

The lower participation is theorized because not only are kids split across grades, but, the younger kids also hit with the RAE. By moving the date, the kids at the bad side of RAE will at least be with their classmates.

Youth (and future national) soccer in the USA is doomed if ‘playing with friends and classmates’ has become a main criteria for soccer development.

New term
Playdate Soccer

Again, at the u-littles it is, in order to increase the total pool, so that the vanishingly small number of actually incredibly talented kids have a bigger chance of sticking around.

Regardless, the ending of trapped players is, to me, the best part.

The month of your birth does not determine talent. The player pool is not going to increase because of this. Talented competitive players are not interested in watered down playdate soccer.

And trapped players will still exist no matter the cut off. This is reality.

Talented, competitive, young athletes are certainly interested in playing with friends. Which is why some now leave soccer at a young age (even though they dominate in soccer) to play other sports they dominate in (such as basketball, volleyball, gymnastics, swimming, softball, etc.) where they get to play with friends in their grade while dominating in those sports, too.

While there will continue to be some trapped players, there will be much less of them.

And for the BY fans, even though the leagues may change to SY, the national teams will continue to be BY. So all the current Q1 kids will remain in Q1 when they go on to play for the national teams.

Take a look at the rosters of highly competitive teams (those that advance to playoffs or finals for example) - these players come from various areas and are not in the same schools or neighborhoods even. Competitive players are not looking for playdate soccer.

"Playing with friends" is not about anything except U-littles. It's about bringing kids INTO soccer, not about highly competitive teams. Its also about more than playing with friends, its about signing kids up together who know each other from school and also live by each other, which means those kids can also carpool to practice and games, becuase in addition to knowing the kids the parents know the parents.

My competitive player signed up first for soccer at 5 with girls from kinder garden in a rec league with a parent coach. Then only moved to a junior academy program because that program let all the girls come together. Despite not all being the same birth year. Within a couple a years of was clear that different girls were on different paths, it was time for select soccer, and the girls were split up by birth year and competitiveness and all is well, but the only reason they all played in the first place was becuase they, and we the parents, did it all together.

This is a real thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We actually still are waiting for the results of birth year because it went into effect in 2017. That’s 8 years ago only lol. So in effect we really need to examine how our U18 and U17 teams have been performing at a national level? Those kids are the only ones that have only experienced an entire playing career within the birth year format.

That’s what makes this change strange imo because we don’t know the results yet.

Anyone understand what I’m saying?

I understand and you would be correct if this change was only about our national teams, the decision to switch to birth year was made unilaterally and unsupported by the majority of youth soccer. From listening to Skip Gilbert the decision was made by folks that only had the European model experience, the US is very different in that our government doesn't subsidize our youth sports. It was a square peg in a round hole.

Interesting

Anyhow...lets keep an eye on the current crop of USA U17 and U18 national team players...this change back to school year means nothing now because at this point they are professionals. Their results with the national team when they are in their 20s will prove wether or not the birth year system worked.

It's relevant and should be looked at. Not sure about the 17's and 18's but the 19's beat Uruguay and Argentina over the summer.

How in your mind does changing the cutoff year work to make players better?

Hey good point and I should have included the 19s as well as those kids were born in 2006!!

So when is the last time in US Soccer that our U19s ever defeated Uruguay or Argentina? It never happened during the school year days that is for sure!!!

Like I said before....I think this change is happening for the whole purpose of these youth clubs making more money since it means more participation at least early on in the process