Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Now that the season has started, the big question is how clubs will manage the transition.
My kid is late December 2010 and plays on an RL team on one of the top ECNL programs in the country. Both the 2010 and 2011 ECNL teams are among the top teams in the country (on par with the top MLS club academies in MLS Next in the state).
We had a tournament last weekend and were able to watch the 2011 RL team. My son is superior to every player on that 2011 RL team technically, physically, and tactically. It would be a significant step down for him to move to that team.
I understand that the 2010 and 2011 NL teams have had 80%+ of their rosters in place for several years now, meaning very little turnover and not many opportunities for new players to move up or in.
The inertia people naturally gravitate towards could cause a mismatch in terms of placement. It will be interesting to see how they manage this transition in the early part of 2026.
5 months players are moving down. I would say at least 50% roster change next year, and it will be much more for the top ECNL team.
Anonymous wrote:Agreed. It’ll be interesting for the clubs that let kids play up who may get pushed back. And then you have the clubs that never let kids play up, so will they risk kids leaving for the other clubs that dont have as hard a rule? They probably have run that risk for quite some time so probably ok with that vs changing their rules.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Now that the season has started, the big question is how clubs will manage the transition.
My kid is late December 2010 and plays on an RL team on one of the top ECNL programs in the country. Both the 2010 and 2011 ECNL teams are among the top teams in the country (on par with the top MLS club academies in MLS Next in the state).
We had a tournament last weekend and were able to watch the 2011 RL team. My son is superior to every player on that 2011 RL team technically, physically, and tactically. It would be a significant step down for him to move to that team.
I understand that the 2010 and 2011 NL teams have had 80%+ of their rosters in place for several years now, meaning very little turnover and not many opportunities for new players to move up or in.
The inertia people naturally gravitate towards could cause a mismatch in terms of placement. It will be interesting to see how they manage this transition in the early part of 2026.
5 months players are moving down. I would say at least 50% roster change next year, and it will be much more for the top ECNL team.
Anonymous wrote:Agreed. It’ll be interesting for the clubs that let kids play up who may get pushed back. And then you have the clubs that never let kids play up, so will they risk kids leaving for the other clubs that dont have as hard a rule? They probably have run that risk for quite some time so probably ok with that vs changing their rules.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Now that the season has started, the big question is how clubs will manage the transition.
My kid is late December 2010 and plays on an RL team on one of the top ECNL programs in the country. Both the 2010 and 2011 ECNL teams are among the top teams in the country (on par with the top MLS club academies in MLS Next in the state).
We had a tournament last weekend and were able to watch the 2011 RL team. My son is superior to every player on that 2011 RL team technically, physically, and tactically. It would be a significant step down for him to move to that team.
I understand that the 2010 and 2011 NL teams have had 80%+ of their rosters in place for several years now, meaning very little turnover and not many opportunities for new players to move up or in.
The inertia people naturally gravitate towards could cause a mismatch in terms of placement. It will be interesting to see how they manage this transition in the early part of 2026.
5 months players are moving down. I would say at least 50% roster change next year, and it will be much more for the top ECNL team.
Agreed. It’ll be interesting for the clubs that let kids play up who may get pushed back. And then you have the clubs that never let kids play up, so will they risk kids leaving for the other clubs that dont have as hard a rule? They probably have run that risk for quite some time so probably ok with that vs changing their rules.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Now that the season has started, the big question is how clubs will manage the transition.
My kid is late December 2010 and plays on an RL team on one of the top ECNL programs in the country. Both the 2010 and 2011 ECNL teams are among the top teams in the country (on par with the top MLS club academies in MLS Next in the state).
We had a tournament last weekend and were able to watch the 2011 RL team. My son is superior to every player on that 2011 RL team technically, physically, and tactically. It would be a significant step down for him to move to that team.
I understand that the 2010 and 2011 NL teams have had 80%+ of their rosters in place for several years now, meaning very little turnover and not many opportunities for new players to move up or in.
The inertia people naturally gravitate towards could cause a mismatch in terms of placement. It will be interesting to see how they manage this transition in the early part of 2026.
5 months players are moving down. I would say at least 50% roster change next year, and it will be much more for the top ECNL team.
Anonymous wrote:Now that the season has started, the big question is how clubs will manage the transition.
My kid is late December 2010 and plays on an RL team on one of the top ECNL programs in the country. Both the 2010 and 2011 ECNL teams are among the top teams in the country (on par with the top MLS club academies in MLS Next in the state).
We had a tournament last weekend and were able to watch the 2011 RL team. My son is superior to every player on that 2011 RL team technically, physically, and tactically. It would be a significant step down for him to move to that team.
I understand that the 2010 and 2011 NL teams have had 80%+ of their rosters in place for several years now, meaning very little turnover and not many opportunities for new players to move up or in.
The inertia people naturally gravitate towards could cause a mismatch in terms of placement. It will be interesting to see how they manage this transition in the early part of 2026.
Anonymous wrote:Now that the season has started, the big question is how clubs will manage the transition.
My kid is late December 2010 and plays on an RL team on one of the top ECNL programs in the country. Both the 2010 and 2011 ECNL teams are among the top teams in the country (on par with the top MLS club academies in MLS Next in the state).
We had a tournament last weekend and were able to watch the 2011 RL team. My son is superior to every player on that 2011 RL team technically, physically, and tactically. It would be a significant step down for him to move to that team.
I understand that the 2010 and 2011 NL teams have had 80%+ of their rosters in place for several years now, meaning very little turnover and not many opportunities for new players to move up or in.
The inertia people naturally gravitate towards could cause a mismatch in terms of placement. It will be interesting to see how they manage this transition in the early part of 2026.
Anonymous wrote:Most kids are held back for kindergarten or, in other sports, like hockey, do an extra senior year. The former don’t even know it is happening, the latter do it to gain an advantage voluntarily. It happens, all the time. But I agree, if I tried to get my U15 to stay back a grade to help with soccer, that would be a disaster. As a matter of fact, she is a September birthday, and could play U14 under the new rules, but would be devastated if forced by the club, even though this would be a huge advantage soccer wise. But she would probably quit if forced to play down.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why people get their panties in a wad when grad year, and holding back, enters the conversation. Who cares? It's such a small number that it impacts next to nothing. And plus, if your kid is good enough to play at the next level, they're going to be playing with kids much older than them. Same goes for HS school.
Grad year is a gigantic can of worms. You don't just have the pre-k hold backs, you get the 8th grade hold backs too and kids several years older at the recruiting years that matter. Scouts *should* be smart enough to differentiate, but they're not so it's a huge advantage. Also, don't discount all the extra benefits the held back kids had from getting the better coaching during development years since they were "good for their AG".
Yes the tippy top kids have nothing to worry about, but for many others it's a ridiculous advantage and I'm glad they realized that when making the age change formally.
I hear you, but I don’t think it’s as big a problem as people think. Scout’s definitely know the age of the kids they’re recruiting. I’m sure it can be an advantage in some instances, but if it was as huge an advantage as the saber rattlers say, then you’d see a lot more of it happening.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why people get their panties in a wad when grad year, and holding back, enters the conversation. Who cares? It's such a small number that it impacts next to nothing. And plus, if your kid is good enough to play at the next level, they're going to be playing with kids much older than them. Same goes for HS school.
Grad year is a gigantic can of worms. You don't just have the pre-k hold backs, you get the 8th grade hold backs too and kids several years older at the recruiting years that matter. Scouts *should* be smart enough to differentiate, but they're not so it's a huge advantage. Also, don't discount all the extra benefits the held back kids had from getting the better coaching during development years since they were "good for their AG".
Yes the tippy top kids have nothing to worry about, but for many others it's a ridiculous advantage and I'm glad they realized that when making the age change formally.
Their is no pro path way, merely the perception of a pathway for a minimum wage job. Smart people with kids age 10 and over have run the numbers to see this.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I know the Grad Year haters won’t like this take but from listening to different podcast talk about how college recruitment is going to be even more competitive with smaller rosters and 5 years of eligibility. ECNL should incentivize Grad Year and holdbacks.
I just heard a college coach say essentially how do I recruit an 18 year old when I can get a 22 year old adult from outside the states. College is must win now now development.
Sounds like the women’s side is starting to go that route more as well.
I get the stigma of holding back for just athletics but if college coaches stop showing up to showcases and recruiting less American kids that will really hurt the ECNL platform.
Your son is biobanding and playing down against players 20 months younger.
My son is 7 so no and there’s no incentive to hold kids back for soccer.
My point is if ncaa turns into euro league 2.0 ECNL will be dead because the reason players are there are for college recruitment and that’s it.
MLSN at least has the pro pathway option. As unlikely as it is.
Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why people get their panties in a wad when grad year, and holding back, enters the conversation. Who cares? It's such a small number that it impacts next to nothing. And plus, if your kid is good enough to play at the next level, they're going to be playing with kids much older than them. Same goes for HS school.