Reply to ECNL moving to school year part 2

Forum Index » Soccer

Reply to "ECNL moving to school year part 2"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
I think many people forget MLSNext is not just MLS Academies.

On the contrary, with tier 2 expansion the MLSN P2P clubs outnumber the academies.

So MLSN can’t ditch P2P clubs’ interests (huge amount of money is coming from P2P clubs to MLSN).

For a MLSN P2P it’s impossible to keep 2 age systems. Organization would be crazy.

U12 and younger, plus the rest of older teams (non MLSN) will be playing SY … so I see unavoidable that MLSN P2P push for moving to SY.

[/quote]

P2P MLSN clubs vastly outnumbered Academies [i]before[/i] MLSN2 arrived. It is just, literally, another soccer league in a soup of them. Some of these people on here acting like these kids are all going pro and need to be grouped by BY because ('sans England') other countries group by BY (they do that because BY is also their school year cohorts) is wild. I know certain generations are susceptible to marketing but dang. Nothing would change if MLSN went SY or stayed BY. It would not change an iota. My god...

[/quote]
Why dont you just mind your own business and let people do what they want. Oh ya you know that if MLSN stays BY they will just ignore ECNL even more than they already do. Which will be really bad for boys ECNL.[/quote]

I' m glad you think I have some sort of 'say' on what happens. Do you think the board of MLSN is here reading our posts and going, "hmmm. Anon#20232 had a really good point there, let's change to SY!"?

Personally, I don't care if they change or not. My kid plays MLSN1 and I love the competition and strength of the league. [/quote]

What month is your son? Maybe are you afraid that your boy won’t be a starter, or even not make his MLSN1 team, if MLSN1 moves to SY?

Just asking …[/quote]

I’ve been saying SY is the correct call for MLSN man. I don’t think a fractured system where two silos (BY/SY) have different age cutoffs benefits anyone but the leagues themselves.

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious. [/quote]

Can't say I agree with this.  If you're the oldest in a particular age group system, you will benefit as a player.  So in the SY system, the August - December bdays benefit (a lot) by being the oldest and getting more opportunities.  And same for the spring birthdays in the BY system.  Having two systems gives more opportunities for more players![/quote]

Please explain how further fracturing (an already fractured and confusing youth system) even further "[i]gives more opportunities for more players![/i]"? What is going to happen is we would end up with entire clubs, cities and ecosystems split into BY and SY. How does that benefit anyone except for those at the top?

"gives more opportunities for more players!". Yes. It gives more opportunities for players/famlies to get fleeced. Sounds great. [/quote]

Happy to explain.  The fall bday players will have more opportunities for top teams to get out on the field and play soccer in the SY leagues.  Same for spring birthdays in the BY leagues.

You wouldn't necessarily have to travel more.  You could just play the same teams more times.  So your economic argument doesn't hold water.  This is about kids playing soccer - and there will be more of them doing that with two systems.  Don't be salty.[/quote]
If they are split up you have lowered the bar for being on a top team.   That hurts everyone.  [/quote]

It's not "if."  They will be split up in 26/27 if MLS Next and GA stay BY.  US Club and USYS are changing to school year for sure.  So are you suggesting MLS Next and GA [b]MUST[/b] change to SY for the sake of youth soccer?  If so, just say that.[/quote]

I would suggest that yes. Your solution just makes things more confusing, more diluted, and ultimately does not progress youth soccer for anyone. Creating two completely siloed systems (which ECNL is clearly trying to do, and now MLSN with MLSN2 seems to be also doing) isn't good for the sport. You can't honestly argue that it will be. They should probably have never changed it in 2016, and they should not have then decided to change it again. But it is what it is.

Is that fair for these other two groups to now change if they don't want really to? No, it is not fair. it sucks but it would be better for the sport to change. That's all. I don't give a shit about ECNL or any other league in particular. I hope MSNL/GA changes to SY and then eats ECNL for lunch. One less league would be fantastic. [/quote]

Everyone knows that the Q4 birthdays have had a tough time making it on top teams since 2016.  It was well-documented on the locked thread.  That being a fact, I can honestly argue that having a SY system is better for Q4s.

But of course if all leagues switch to SY, the late spring birthdays may not have the opportunity to play on top teams for the same reason.  More "top teams" where more kids get opportunities is better for all those kids.

Your argument about "diluting" and "siloed" is frankly just baloney.  It's not that serious.[/quote]

Maybe having two exlusive systems where Q1s are favored and another where Q4s are favored would be beneficial? Maybe we should just throw in a third cutoff date (where is SY +30 guy?) into the mix and have 3 systems. Or, better yet, we can have 12! That way everyone's kid gets a system that favors their birthday! I like where this is going... [/quote]

If the market supports it - and kids want to play soccer - why not have 3 or 4 cutoff systems?  Saying youth soccer will fall apart if we "dilute" it is just a scare tactic / overdramatization.  The kids will be fine.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics