Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it fair to say if you are a generational talent, destined to be a pro-star, you'd be at a MLS Pro Academy if not in Europe.

In the category of "good" there's a lot of room between the above and "not good" that covers most of MLSN1 and ECNL and a fair chunk of 2/RL.

Regardless, MLS Next teams don't play against MLSN2 teams

MLSN2 is the 2nd tier of the system and should play against other 2nd tier level teams if an individual team is doing well they will move up to tier 1.

Playing boys ECNL is also a tier below MLSN so regardless ECNL or MLSN2 you’re still not at the top of the youth boys pyramid. MLSN2 at least has the opportunity to move up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it fair to say if you are a generational talent, destined to be a pro-star, you'd be at a MLS Pro Academy if not in Europe.

In the category of "good" there's a lot of room between the above and "not good" that covers most of MLSN1 and ECNL and a fair chunk of 2/RL.

Regardless, MLS Next teams don't play against MLSN2 teams

Anonymous wrote:They do in friendlies.

Anonymous wrote:I think it fair to say if you are a generational talent, destined to be a pro-star, you'd be at a MLS Pro Academy if not in Europe.

In the category of "good" there's a lot of room between the above and "not good" that covers most of MLSN1 and ECNL and a fair chunk of 2/RL.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a September parent I’m not interesting in dual rostering my kid.

The top level in my state is ECNL. If MLSN AD plays games were out.

They need to roster everyone within the new bands and move on.

Not happening in MLSN strong Q3/4 can still play BY and if clubs feel like a player is not starter level they should be moved to SY team to offset those minutes they are losing on BY team giving players more opportunities.That was MLSN rationale for keeping both.

Parents will always and should always move kids to what’s best for them.

That's the problem. The Q3/Q4 kids that are good enough for the BY team but wouldn't get max playing time would have to go down two levels of play since they can't play for the MLSN1 team at their SY age level. Unless they bioband, I can't imagine why they would stay instead of going to ECNL.

That makes sense if you're high

What's "max playing time"?
There's no MLS1, only MLS Next
MLS Next isn't SY so there's no SY age level

Your skill level isn't tied to the calendar quarter you were born in. If that were the case, no kid would ever play up successfully.

You just answered it yourself. MLSN 1 is BY, but MLSN2 is SY. Take a minute and let that sink in. It seems maybe you're the one missing brain cells.

What's the problem?
Your kid is either MLSN2 or MLS Next


If they're good, they're MLS Next

This simply isn't true. We are at a huge club with 1 MLSN team and multiple MLSN2 teams. Our MLSN2 teams would absolutely dust many of the nonAcademy MLSN teams. The league doesn't make the team

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a September parent I’m not interesting in dual rostering my kid.

The top level in my state is ECNL. If MLSN AD plays games were out.

They need to roster everyone within the new bands and move on.

Not happening in MLSN strong Q3/4 can still play BY and if clubs feel like a player is not starter level they should be moved to SY team to offset those minutes they are losing on BY team giving players more opportunities.That was MLSN rationale for keeping both.

Parents will always and should always move kids to what’s best for them.

That's the problem. The Q3/Q4 kids that are good enough for the BY team but wouldn't get max playing time would have to go down two levels of play since they can't play for the MLSN1 team at their SY age level. Unless they bioband, I can't imagine why they would stay instead of going to ECNL.

That makes sense if you're high

What's "max playing time"?
There's no MLS1, only MLS Next
MLS Next isn't SY so there's no SY age level

Your skill level isn't tied to the calendar quarter you were born in. If that were the case, no kid would ever play up successfully.

You just answered it yourself. MLSN 1 is BY, but MLSN2 is SY. Take a minute and let that sink in. It seems maybe you're the one missing brain cells.

What's the problem?
Your kid is either MLSN2 or MLS Next


If they're good, they're MLS Next

This simply isn't true. We are at a huge club with 1 MLSN team and multiple MLSN2 teams. Our MLSN2 teams would absolutely dust many of the nonAcademy MLSN teams. The league doesn't make the team

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a September parent I’m not interesting in dual rostering my kid.

The top level in my state is ECNL. If MLSN AD plays games were out.

They need to roster everyone within the new bands and move on.

Not happening in MLSN strong Q3/4 can still play BY and if clubs feel like a player is not starter level they should be moved to SY team to offset those minutes they are losing on BY team giving players more opportunities.That was MLSN rationale for keeping both.

Parents will always and should always move kids to what’s best for them.

That's the problem. The Q3/Q4 kids that are good enough for the BY team but wouldn't get max playing time would have to go down two levels of play since they can't play for the MLSN1 team at their SY age level. Unless they bioband, I can't imagine why they would stay instead of going to ECNL.

That makes sense if you're high

What's "max playing time"?
There's no MLS1, only MLS Next
MLS Next isn't SY so there's no SY age level

Your skill level isn't tied to the calendar quarter you were born in. If that were the case, no kid would ever play up successfully.

You just answered it yourself. MLSN 1 is BY, but MLSN2 is SY. Take a minute and let that sink in. It seems maybe you're the one missing brain cells.

What's the problem?
Your kid is either MLSN2 or MLS Next


If they're good, they're MLS Next

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I highly doubt they will allow double rostering- especially since it would involve several Aug+ kids per team. Our club fills each team with 18 kids.

I think its very likely.

Then they would expect a say April/May/June ish kid toward the back of a 20 plus MLS1 P2P roster to hope to get a spot to sit on the bench for an MLSN1 P2P game vs sitting on the bench of an MLSN2 game more or less half an age group up? Sounds like a crappy year for those kids.

These make believe scenarios on this thread has no end in sight

Its the nasty negativity people and ECNL parents trying to pretend they're not 2nd tier.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a September parent I’m not interesting in dual rostering my kid.

The top level in my state is ECNL. If MLSN AD plays games were out.

They need to roster everyone within the new bands and move on.

Not happening in MLSN strong Q3/4 can still play BY and if clubs feel like a player is not starter level they should be moved to SY team to offset those minutes they are losing on BY team giving players more opportunities.That was MLSN rationale for keeping both.

Parents will always and should always move kids to what’s best for them.

That's the problem. The Q3/Q4 kids that are good enough for the BY team but wouldn't get max playing time would have to go down two levels of play since they can't play for the MLSN1 team at their SY age level. Unless they bioband, I can't imagine why they would stay instead of going to ECNL.

That makes sense if you're high

What's "max playing time"?
There's no MLS1, only MLS Next
MLS Next isn't SY so there's no SY age level

Your skill level isn't tied to the calendar quarter you were born in. If that were the case, no kid would ever play up successfully.

You just answered it yourself. MLSN 1 is BY, but MLSN2 is SY. Take a minute and let that sink in. It seems maybe you're the one missing brain cells.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would you all do... Say you have a December kid who is good enough to make MLSN1 and plays about 50% of the game. The coach very obviously prefers big kids, and the December kid is on the smaller side due to RAE.
A) Stick with that team. (BY)
B) Go to ECNL (SY)
C) Try to get them biobanded for the MLSN1 team at their SY level.
D) Play MLSN 2 (SY)

The difference is MLSN allows you to play two games a day as long as you don’t go over 80-90 min of playing time. So some Aug- December players will play 40-50% with BY team and other with the SY team.

So lots of playing opportunities for Aug to Dec kids will be available with MLSN going forward.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a September parent I’m not interesting in dual rostering my kid.

The top level in my state is ECNL. If MLSN AD plays games were out.

They need to roster everyone within the new bands and move on.

Not happening in MLSN strong Q3/4 can still play BY and if clubs feel like a player is not starter level they should be moved to SY team to offset those minutes they are losing on BY team giving players more opportunities.That was MLSN rationale for keeping both.

Parents will always and should always move kids to what’s best for them.

That's the problem. The Q3/Q4 kids that are good enough for the BY team but wouldn't get max playing time would have to go down two levels of play since they can't play for the MLSN1 team at their SY age level. Unless they bioband, I can't imagine why they would stay instead of going to ECNL.

That makes sense if you're high

What's "max playing time"?
There's no MLS1, only MLS Next
MLS Next isn't SY so there's no SY age level

Your skill level isn't tied to the calendar quarter you were born in. If that were the case, no kid would ever play up successfully.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a September parent I’m not interesting in dual rostering my kid.

The top level in my state is ECNL. If MLSN AD plays games were out.

They need to roster everyone within the new bands and move on.

Not happening in MLSN strong Q3/4 can still play BY and if clubs feel like a player is not starter level they should be moved to SY team to offset those minutes they are losing on BY team giving players more opportunities.That was MLSN rationale for keeping both.

Parents will always and should always move kids to what’s best for them.

That's the problem. The Q3/Q4 kids that are good enough for the BY team but wouldn't get max playing time would have to go down two levels of play since they can't play for the MLSN1 team at their SY age level. Unless they bioband, I can't imagine why they would stay instead of going to ECNL.

But for kids who are solid Sept-Dec great opportunity to gut max playing time in both age groups.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a September parent I’m not interesting in dual rostering my kid.

The top level in my state is ECNL. If MLSN AD plays games were out.

They need to roster everyone within the new bands and move on.

Not happening in MLSN strong Q3/4 can still play BY and if clubs feel like a player is not starter level they should be moved to SY team to offset those minutes they are losing on BY team giving players more opportunities.That was MLSN rationale for keeping both.

Parents will always and should always move kids to what’s best for them.

That's the problem. The Q3/Q4 kids that are good enough for the BY team but wouldn't get max playing time would have to go down two levels of play since they can't play for the MLSN1 team at their SY age level. Unless they bioband, I can't imagine why they would stay instead of going to ECNL.