Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

prinmemo wrote:US Club Soccer also posted this announcement on X.

It just confirms what we heard over the weekend. Nothing new.

Can’t wait to see what these resources are going to be 😂 What a cluster f**k

It's probably a few slides that say "remember players can play up"

Anonymous wrote:Am I missing something, if USYS makes the switch everyone will mostly have to right? All the feeder programs heading into MLSN, ECNL and GA unless I am missing an organization.



Is there a similar youth organization to USYS that contains that many soccer kids?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I missing something, if USYS makes the switch everyone will mostly have to right? All the feeder programs heading into MLSN, ECNL and GA unless I am missing an organization.



Is there a similar youth organization to USYS that contains that many soccer kids?

How big is AYSO (and they are with this, too, anyway) And USYS, they are basically all the state-based associations/ODP/National League/E64. AND ALL our local GA, ECNL have their u-littles play in their leagues.

Anonymous wrote:Am I missing something, if USYS makes the switch everyone will mostly have to right? All the feeder programs heading into MLSN, ECNL and GA unless I am missing an organization.



Is there a similar youth organization to USYS that contains that many soccer kids?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without arguing about the cutoff month, the fact is this will completely change the team organization and makeup at every club. Will they all follow this rule for next year? If so, they will need to completely redo all of their teams and coaches by next month's April tryouts.

I just looked my club's ECNL roster, and it comes out to be 2.75 per team across all ECNL age groups. Not that big a deal to drop 2 players for each age to the younger team. No coaching changes needed for this reason alone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without arguing about the cutoff month, the fact is this will completely change the team organization and makeup at every club. Will they all follow this rule for next year? If so, they will need to completely redo all of their teams and coaches by next month's April tryouts.

I just looked my club's ECNL roster, and it comes out to be 2.75 per team across all ECNL age groups. Not that big a deal to drop 2 players for each age to the younger team. No coaching changes needed for this reason alone.

You also have 2-4 ECRL level Q4 players from inside or outside your club dropping down a year and bumping 2-4 ECNL level Q1-3 players of tosters in addition to the standard yearly shuffle. Clubs top teams are going to be substantially different next year with a trickle down effect.

Anonymous wrote:Is it confirmed that 25-26 will be a lame duck year then?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without arguing about the cutoff month, the fact is this will completely change the team organization and makeup at every club. Will they all follow this rule for next year? If so, they will need to completely redo all of their teams and coaches by next month's April tryouts.

I just looked my club's ECNL roster, and it comes out to be 2.75 per team across all ECNL age groups. Not that big a deal to drop 2 players for each age to the younger team. No coaching changes needed for this reason alone.

You also have 2-4 ECRL level Q4 players from inside or outside your club dropping down a year and bumping 2-4 ECNL level Q1-3 players of tosters in addition to the standard yearly shuffle. Clubs top teams are going to be substantially different next year with a trickle down effect.

There's going to be a few "hell no, we won't go parents." That will be fun.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without arguing about the cutoff month, the fact is this will completely change the team organization and makeup at every club. Will they all follow this rule for next year? If so, they will need to completely redo all of their teams and coaches by next month's April tryouts.

I just looked my club's ECNL roster, and it comes out to be 2.75 per team across all ECNL age groups. Not that big a deal to drop 2 players for each age to the younger team. No coaching changes needed for this reason alone.

You also have 2-4 ECRL level Q4 players from inside or outside your club dropping down a year and bumping 2-4 ECNL level Q1-3 players of tosters in addition to the standard yearly shuffle. Clubs top teams are going to be substantially different next year with a trickle down effect.

There's going to be a few "hell no, we won't go parents." That will be fun.

Yeah and a lot of parents apparently that don’t believe we are actually switching

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without arguing about the cutoff month, the fact is this will completely change the team organization and makeup at every club. Will they all follow this rule for next year? If so, they will need to completely redo all of their teams and coaches by next month's April tryouts.

I just looked my club's ECNL roster, and it comes out to be 2.75 per team across all ECNL age groups. Not that big a deal to drop 2 players for each age to the younger team. No coaching changes needed for this reason alone.

You also have 2-4 ECRL level Q4 players from inside or outside your club dropping down a year and bumping 2-4 ECNL level Q1-3 players of tosters in addition to the standard yearly shuffle. Clubs top teams are going to be substantially different next year with a trickle down effect.

There's going to be a few "hell no, we won't go parents." That will be fun.

Yeah and a lot of parents apparently that don’t believe we are actually switching

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9/1 aligns with only 68% of school registration deadlines per that blurb. That is really not a great stat. Lots of kids will be in the wrong age group. They also say kids can always play up. Hence why you needed to go with the earlier date (eg 8/1) and kids can play up with their grade if they fall outside that 12-month period.
Who are these decision makers? They are clueless

Agreed, so disappointing. Really hoping for a waiver process for August kids to play with their grade. Making a decision that isn’t consistent with 32% of school registrations is an issue. That affects a lot of kids. If no exceptions are made, we will see a major drop of August kids participating in soccer at the younger age groups, which is sad.

41% were negatively affected by BY

The current group is based on a calendar year. It wasn’t meant to align with a particular school year. Same standard applies to everyone and the age range covers 2 grades.

Now we now have a grouping that is meant to align with a school year but doesn’t take into consideration 32% of school registrations while setting a national cutoff. Unbelieveable to me.

Yup 💯. It defies all logic. Please please reach out to league leadership and ask for a solution for the August kids. I did this in January and got thoughtful responses from higher ups at AYSO and USYS and the chair of the U.S. Soccer Youth Council who all seemed to grasp the issue. U.S. Club Soccer and ECNL leadership never responded.

I am particularly shocked that AYSO and USYS would go along with this given the heavy rec contingent under their umbrellas. August bday kids will become absent from the sport entirely over time because they won’t even have an entry pathway for soccer with teams started by parents at their school for Kindergarten. Most kids start soccer by joining a team with classmates. It’s just awful.

If it would have been Aug 1. Then we’d have a group of July parents talking about how their kids will be absent from the sport