ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most ECNL teams only have on average 4 late born Sept-Dec players. So you would just swap them out for players within their own club. So it does come down to are late born RL players better than some current Q1/2 ECNL players . Also will GA Q 3/4 players now consider going over to ECNL?

My guess is we will probably see about a 50-60% Q3/4 players on rosters of 18 once this goes into effect.

Obviously some RL 11s will be better than some ECNL 12s. But overall I do not see this huge wave of RL late born kids taking ECNL roster spots.

It will mostly be ECNL or GA late born starters who will get roster spots on newly configured school aged teams.

If your current ECNL team has 4 Q3/Q4 players, then statistically, after the SY change, there will be around 4-5 Q1/Q2 players staying. The rest 14 players will be older Q3/Q4 from older NL team, GA, RL and other clubs. For the 14 players to be removed, 4 Q3/Q4 will go to younger NL team, and 10 Q1/Q2 will go to RL. So we are talking about as many as 50% current NL players will be removed. Those parents will freak out.

The parental freak out will come when they realize these magical Q3/Q4 roster spots don't materialize after reading your comments up and down this thread.

We will see what happens. My daughter plays GA and her 2011 team has the 8th grade RL 2010s practice with her team. There is only 1 girl who could crack the roster as a sub. The top GA team doesn’t have any 8th grade 2010s.

My point is I don’t think we will see a huge wave of change. Unless clubs are looking for a money grab and having huge rosters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most ECNL teams only have on average 4 late born Sept-Dec players. So you would just swap them out for players within their own club. So it does come down to are late born RL players better than some current Q1/2 ECNL players . Also will GA Q 3/4 players now consider going over to ECNL?

My guess is we will probably see about a 50-60% Q3/4 players on rosters of 18 once this goes into effect.

Obviously some RL 11s will be better than some ECNL 12s. But overall I do not see this huge wave of RL late born kids taking ECNL roster spots.

It will mostly be ECNL or GA late born starters who will get roster spots on newly configured school aged teams.

If your current ECNL team has 4 Q3/Q4 players, then statistically, after the SY change, there will be around 4-5 Q1/Q2 players staying. The rest 14 players will be older Q3/Q4 from older NL team, GA, RL and other clubs. For the 14 players to be removed, 4 Q3/Q4 will go to younger NL team, and 10 Q1/Q2 will go to RL. So we are talking about as many as 50% current NL players will be removed. Those parents will freak out.

That is why ECNL can not do hard cut off next year. This will cause a huge disruption on existing team. They will have a transition plan.

This wrongly assumes that q3/q4 are THAT much better than q1/q2 players. Maybe when they were playing 7v7 but not 11v11.

This is true we are all just assuming Q3/4 2010s on average are better than Q1/2 2011s. But if RAE is real then more than likely they may not be more technically skilled but will be bigger and faster.

I’m not saying they are better but if they are as good and bigger and faster that will be an advantage for the Q3/4 players.

RAE impact lessens as kids grow and affect the genders at different times (girls typically sooner), so chances are not much bigger/faster, really. It's a much bigger deal when they are younger, although, because younger/smaller kids quit/move on, we see it's numerical impact on teams the most from 11-15.

[Anonymous]

Give it a rest folks. 660 pages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most ECNL teams only have on average 4 late born Sept-Dec players. So you would just swap them out for players within their own club. So it does come down to are late born RL players better than some current Q1/2 ECNL players . Also will GA Q 3/4 players now consider going over to ECNL?

My guess is we will probably see about a 50-60% Q3/4 players on rosters of 18 once this goes into effect.

Obviously some RL 11s will be better than some ECNL 12s. But overall I do not see this huge wave of RL late born kids taking ECNL roster spots.

It will mostly be ECNL or GA late born starters who will get roster spots on newly configured school aged teams.

If your current ECNL team has 4 Q3/Q4 players, then statistically, after the SY change, there will be around 4-5 Q1/Q2 players staying. The rest 14 players will be older Q3/Q4 from older NL team, GA, RL and other clubs. For the 14 players to be removed, 4 Q3/Q4 will go to younger NL team, and 10 Q1/Q2 will go to RL. So we are talking about as many as 50% current NL players will be removed. Those parents will freak out.

The parental freak out will come when they realize these magical Q3/Q4 roster spots don't materialize after reading your comments up and down this thread.

We will see what happens. My daughter plays GA and her 2011 team has the 8th grade RL 2010s practice with her team. There is only 1 girl who could crack the roster as a sub. The top GA team doesn’t have any 8th grade 2010s.

My point is I don’t think we will see a huge wave of change. Unless clubs are looking for a money grab and having huge rosters.

I agree. Clubs will try to avoid situations where they demote a kid on their top team over this or they will lose that player (and $$$) to another club or that player may quit altogether.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Give it a rest folks. 660 pages.

I thought 1,000 was the goal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Give it a rest folks. 660 pages.

I thought 1,000 was the goal?

Still is. We have 2 more weeks of creating false narratives and speculation before the meeting. At least one of them will turn out to be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Give it a rest folks. 660 pages.

I thought 1,000 was the goal?

Still is. We have 2 more weeks of creating false narratives and speculation before the meeting. At least one of them will turn out to be true.

You should do awards for who stirs the pot the most ...

Is it SY-60 guy

OR

Parent who's convinced q1/q2 players are doomed with SY

Other nominations remain open

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Give it a rest folks. 660 pages.

I thought 1,000 was the goal?

Still is. We have 2 more weeks of creating false narratives and speculation before the meeting. At least one of them will turn out to be true.

You should do awards for who stirs the pot the most ...

Is it SY-60 guy

OR

Parent who's convinced q1/q2 players are doomed with SY

Other nominations remain open

5 to 9 NL players will be moved to RL teams. You do not need to believe it if that makes you feel better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most ECNL teams only have on average 4 late born Sept-Dec players. So you would just swap them out for players within their own club. So it does come down to are late born RL players better than some current Q1/2 ECNL players . Also will GA Q 3/4 players now consider going over to ECNL?

My guess is we will probably see about a 50-60% Q3/4 players on rosters of 18 once this goes into effect.

Obviously some RL 11s will be better than some ECNL 12s. But overall I do not see this huge wave of RL late born kids taking ECNL roster spots.

It will mostly be ECNL or GA late born starters who will get roster spots on newly configured school aged teams.

If your current ECNL team has 4 Q3/Q4 players, then statistically, after the SY change, there will be around 4-5 Q1/Q2 players staying. The rest 14 players will be older Q3/Q4 from older NL team, GA, RL and other clubs. For the 14 players to be removed, 4 Q3/Q4 will go to younger NL team, and 10 Q1/Q2 will go to RL. So we are talking about as many as 50% current NL players will be removed. Those parents will freak out.

That is why ECNL can not do hard cut off next year. This will cause a huge disruption on existing team. They will have a transition plan.

This wrongly assumes that q3/q4 are THAT much better than q1/q2 players. Maybe when they were playing 7v7 but not 11v11.

This is true we are all just assuming Q3/4 2010s on average are better than Q1/2 2011s. But if RAE is real then more than likely they may not be more technically skilled but will be bigger and faster.

I’m not saying they are better but if they are as good and bigger and faster that will be an advantage for the Q3/4 players.

RAE impact lessens as kids grow and affect the genders at different times (girls typically sooner), so chances are not much bigger/faster, really. It's a much bigger deal when they are younger, although, because younger/smaller kids quit/move on, we see it's numerical impact on teams the most from 11-15.

Still lots of growing for kids until about U16/17 for girls. Boys you see a big difference until U17/18. The physical changes definitely are in effect until they are in their Junior year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most ECNL teams only have on average 4 late born Sept-Dec players. So you would just swap them out for players within their own club. So it does come down to are late born RL players better than some current Q1/2 ECNL players . Also will GA Q 3/4 players now consider going over to ECNL?

My guess is we will probably see about a 50-60% Q3/4 players on rosters of 18 once this goes into effect.

Obviously some RL 11s will be better than some ECNL 12s. But overall I do not see this huge wave of RL late born kids taking ECNL roster spots.

It will mostly be ECNL or GA late born starters who will get roster spots on newly configured school aged teams.

If your current ECNL team has 4 Q3/Q4 players, then statistically, after the SY change, there will be around 4-5 Q1/Q2 players staying. The rest 14 players will be older Q3/Q4 from older NL team, GA, RL and other clubs. For the 14 players to be removed, 4 Q3/Q4 will go to younger NL team, and 10 Q1/Q2 will go to RL. So we are talking about as many as 50% current NL players will be removed. Those parents will freak out.

That is why ECNL can not do hard cut off next year. This will cause a huge disruption on existing team. They will have a transition plan.

This wrongly assumes that q3/q4 are THAT much better than q1/q2 players. Maybe when they were playing 7v7 but not 11v11.

This is true we are all just assuming Q3/4 2010s on average are better than Q1/2 2011s. But if RAE is real then more than likely they may not be more technically skilled but will be bigger and faster.

I’m not saying they are better but if they are as good and bigger and faster that will be an advantage for the Q3/4 players.

RAE impact lessens as kids grow and affect the genders at different times (girls typically sooner), so chances are not much bigger/faster, really. It's a much bigger deal when they are younger, although, because younger/smaller kids quit/move on, we see it's numerical impact on teams the most from 11-15.

Still lots of growing for kids until about U16/17 for girls. Boys you see a big difference until U17/18. The physical changes definitely are in effect until they are in their Junior year.

Ur illiterate on the matter cease and desist of creating more trash posting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most ECNL teams only have on average 4 late born Sept-Dec players. So you would just swap them out for players within their own club. So it does come down to are late born RL players better than some current Q1/2 ECNL players . Also will GA Q 3/4 players now consider going over to ECNL?

My guess is we will probably see about a 50-60% Q3/4 players on rosters of 18 once this goes into effect.

Obviously some RL 11s will be better than some ECNL 12s. But overall I do not see this huge wave of RL late born kids taking ECNL roster spots.

It will mostly be ECNL or GA late born starters who will get roster spots on newly configured school aged teams.

If your current ECNL team has 4 Q3/Q4 players, then statistically, after the SY change, there will be around 4-5 Q1/Q2 players staying. The rest 14 players will be older Q3/Q4 from older NL team, GA, RL and other clubs. For the 14 players to be removed, 4 Q3/Q4 will go to younger NL team, and 10 Q1/Q2 will go to RL. So we are talking about as many as 50% current NL players will be removed. Those parents will freak out.

That is why ECNL can not do hard cut off next year. This will cause a huge disruption on existing team. They will have a transition plan.

This wrongly assumes that q3/q4 are THAT much better than q1/q2 players. Maybe when they were playing 7v7 but not 11v11.

This is true we are all just assuming Q3/4 2010s on average are better than Q1/2 2011s. But if RAE is real then more than likely they may not be more technically skilled but will be bigger and faster.

I’m not saying they are better but if they are as good and bigger and faster that will be an advantage for the Q3/4 players.

RAE impact lessens as kids grow and affect the genders at different times (girls typically sooner), so chances are not much bigger/faster, really. It's a much bigger deal when they are younger, although, because younger/smaller kids quit/move on, we see it's numerical impact on teams the most from 11-15.

The physical differences go into college as well my friend. Especially now with JC not effecting electability.

Theres big differences between a high school freshman to senior as well as a high school senior age 17/18 to a 20-25 year old college kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most ECNL teams only have on average 4 late born Sept-Dec players. So you would just swap them out for players within their own club. So it does come down to are late born RL players better than some current Q1/2 ECNL players . Also will GA Q 3/4 players now consider going over to ECNL?

My guess is we will probably see about a 50-60% Q3/4 players on rosters of 18 once this goes into effect.

Obviously some RL 11s will be better than some ECNL 12s. But overall I do not see this huge wave of RL late born kids taking ECNL roster spots.

It will mostly be ECNL or GA late born starters who will get roster spots on newly configured school aged teams.

If your current ECNL team has 4 Q3/Q4 players, then statistically, after the SY change, there will be around 4-5 Q1/Q2 players staying. The rest 14 players will be older Q3/Q4 from older NL team, GA, RL and other clubs. For the 14 players to be removed, 4 Q3/Q4 will go to younger NL team, and 10 Q1/Q2 will go to RL. So we are talking about as many as 50% current NL players will be removed. Those parents will freak out.

That is why ECNL can not do hard cut off next year. This will cause a huge disruption on existing team. They will have a transition plan.

This wrongly assumes that q3/q4 are THAT much better than q1/q2 players. Maybe when they were playing 7v7 but not 11v11.

This is true we are all just assuming Q3/4 2010s on average are better than Q1/2 2011s. But if RAE is real then more than likely they may not be more technically skilled but will be bigger and faster.

I’m not saying they are better but if they are as good and bigger and faster that will be an advantage for the Q3/4 players.

RAE impact lessens as kids grow and affect the genders at different times (girls typically sooner), so chances are not much bigger/faster, really. It's a much bigger deal when they are younger, although, because younger/smaller kids quit/move on, we see it's numerical impact on teams the most from 11-15.

Still lots of growing for kids until about U16/17 for girls. Boys you see a big difference until U17/18. The physical changes definitely are in effect until they are in their Junior year.

Ur illiterate on the matter cease and desist of creating more trash posting

Just doing my part.

[Anonymous]

ECNL to Grad Year by 27/28.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ECNL to Grad Year by 27/28.

You are desperate...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ECNL to Grad Year by 27/28.

Please keep commenting.

You make ECNL look great.