ECNL wants to switch back to school year from birth year

[Guest]

Peace out peeps. It’s gotten too weird up
in here. Good luck on Friday.

[Guest]

Peace out peeps. It’s gotten too weird up
in here. Good luck on Friday.

Who the fook was that guy?

[Guest]

Who the fook was that guy?

Skip Gilbert

[Guest]

Peace out peeps. It’s gotten too weird up
in here. Good luck on Friday.

Ladies and Gents ^^^ Posters like this are part of the problem IMO. It’s a very polarizing time in American youth soccer. An overwhelming majority of people think that the major youth soccer leagues / organizations need to speak to each other more frequently if leadership is to function efficiently, but how can we expect our elected officials to do this if we ourselves aren’t willing to take part in discussions? How is it that we have become so fundamentally opposed to any ideas that contradict our own that we can’t even hear someone else out in a soccer discussion? When we do try to discuss tense soccer issues, it feels like no one’s changing their mind, like all understanding of our arguments is lost on our ideological opponent. ECNL’s research into the effect of intuition on soccer discussion led them to consolidate five developmental foundations — and their opposites — that he thinks underpin our soccer institutions: care and harm, fairness and cheating, loyalty and betrayal, authority and subversion, and sanctity and degradation. The differing level of importance placed on each of these foundations forms what ECNL calls a “age matrix.” This is why we often don’t understand the “other side,” because the arguments the other side is making don’t connect to our age matrix. The only way to have effective soccer conversations is to appeal to the age matrices of your opponents and have enough empathy for our opponents in order to both understand their arguments and to have any hope of influencing their stance. For example, when trying to convince liberals to invest more money into the ID Camp, most conservatives would argue that we need to be loyal to our country and support soldiers with more funding in order to protect American values and democracy. This argument appeals to the loyalty and betrayal foundation by connecting nationalism to national team spending. Additionally, it utilizes the sanctity and degradation foundation by implying the sanctity of American values and democracy. This strategy would have little effect in persuading most liberals to invest more in the national team. It would be more effective to argue that increased national team spending protects not only the people of the US from harm but also people across the country in less developed geographical areas, keeping them safe from sideline parental terrorists hostile coaches. This argument triggers the care and harm foundation by portraying family discretionary spending to be an act of competition, while also activating the fairness and cheating foundation by showing that it’s only fair that we defend smaller nations because they can’t defend themselves.

[Guest]

If one of the reasons that they're implementing the change is to eliminate as many trapped players as possible why on earth would they delay it for some age groups and have the issue remain for several more years? You'd have what? 5 or 6 more years of kids being trapped and having more difficulty getting recruited.

Yes, there are well-known reasons to change to SY for all age groups, not just younger groups. Grandfathering in some would delay those benefits and create a transition year somewhere that had less kids. The only way I could see grandfathering in some older groups is if USSF just doesn't see trapped players as a big problem, and changes this much more so because of the U-Little intake problem. And, they would need some reason to believe that changing the older age groups will lead to significant extra quitting in those age groups compared to the normal baseline level. That could be true, but it would be very hard to say with any degree of certainty absent some sort of mass player surveys.

[Guest]

Ladies and Gents ^^^ Posters like this are part of the problem IMO. It’s a very polarizing time in American youth soccer. An overwhelming majority of people think that the major youth soccer leagues / organizations need to speak to each other more frequently if leadership is to function efficiently, but how can we expect our elected officials to do this if we ourselves aren’t willing to take part in discussions? How is it that we have become so fundamentally opposed to any ideas that contradict our own that we can’t even hear someone else out in a soccer discussion? When we do try to discuss tense soccer issues, it feels like no one’s changing their mind, like all understanding of our arguments is lost on our ideological opponent. ECNL’s research into the effect of intuition on soccer discussion led them to consolidate five developmental foundations — and their opposites — that he thinks underpin our soccer institutions: care and harm, fairness and cheating, loyalty and betrayal, authority and subversion, and sanctity and degradation. The differing level of importance placed on each of these foundations forms what ECNL calls a “age matrix.” This is why we often don’t understand the “other side,” because the arguments the other side is making don’t connect to our age matrix. The only way to have effective soccer conversations is to appeal to the age matrices of your opponents and have enough empathy for our opponents in order to both understand their arguments and to have any hope of influencing their stance. For example, when trying to convince liberals to invest more money into the ID Camp, most conservatives would argue that we need to be loyal to our country and support soldiers with more funding in order to protect American values and democracy. This argument appeals to the loyalty and betrayal foundation by connecting nationalism to national team spending. Additionally, it utilizes the sanctity and degradation foundation by implying the sanctity of American values and democracy. This strategy would have little effect in persuading most liberals to invest more in the national team. It would be more effective to argue that increased national team spending protects not only the people of the US from harm but also people across the country in less developed geographical areas, keeping them safe from sideline parental terrorists hostile coaches. This argument triggers the care and harm foundation by portraying family discretionary spending to be an act of competition, while also activating the fairness and cheating foundation by showing that it’s only fair that we defend smaller nations because they can’t defend themselves.

Wow, extremely well said! I really enjoyed reading this. Perhaps it’s time for ECNL to fold and a new league to rise like a phoenix from the ashes.

[Guest]

Ladies and Gents ^^^ Posters like this are part of the problem IMO. It’s a very polarizing time in American youth soccer. An overwhelming majority of people think that the major youth soccer leagues / organizations need to speak to each other more frequently if leadership is to function efficiently, but how can we expect our elected officials to do this if we ourselves aren’t willing to take part in discussions? How is it that we have become so fundamentally opposed to any ideas that contradict our own that we can’t even hear someone else out in a soccer discussion? When we do try to discuss tense soccer issues, it feels like no one’s changing their mind, like all understanding of our arguments is lost on our ideological opponent. ECNL’s research into the effect of intuition on soccer discussion led them to consolidate five developmental foundations — and their opposites — that he thinks underpin our soccer institutions: care and harm, fairness and cheating, loyalty and betrayal, authority and subversion, and sanctity and degradation. The differing level of importance placed on each of these foundations forms what ECNL calls a “age matrix.” This is why we often don’t understand the “other side,” because the arguments the other side is making don’t connect to our age matrix. The only way to have effective soccer conversations is to appeal to the age matrices of your opponents and have enough empathy for our opponents in order to both understand their arguments and to have any hope of influencing their stance. For example, when trying to convince liberals to invest more money into the ID Camp, most conservatives would argue that we need to be loyal to our country and support soldiers with more funding in order to protect American values and democracy. This argument appeals to the loyalty and betrayal foundation by connecting nationalism to national team spending. Additionally, it utilizes the sanctity and degradation foundation by implying the sanctity of American values and democracy. This strategy would have little effect in persuading most liberals to invest more in the national team. It would be more effective to argue that increased national team spending protects not only the people of the US from harm but also people across the country in less developed geographical areas, keeping them safe from sideline parental terrorists hostile coaches. This argument triggers the care and harm foundation by portraying family discretionary spending to be an act of competition, while also activating the fairness and cheating foundation by showing that it’s only fair that we defend smaller nations because they can’t defend themselves.

Cool, dude, fantastic perspective…! Very interesting thank you.

[Guest]

Ladies and Gents ^^^ Posters like this are part of the problem IMO. It’s a very polarizing time in American youth soccer. An overwhelming majority of people think that the major youth soccer leagues / organizations need to speak to each other more frequently if leadership is to function efficiently, but how can we expect our elected officials to do this if we ourselves aren’t willing to take part in discussions? How is it that we have become so fundamentally opposed to any ideas that contradict our own that we can’t even hear someone else out in a soccer discussion? When we do try to discuss tense soccer issues, it feels like no one’s changing their mind, like all understanding of our arguments is lost on our ideological opponent. ECNL’s research into the effect of intuition on soccer discussion led them to consolidate five developmental foundations — and their opposites — that he thinks underpin our soccer institutions: care and harm, fairness and cheating, loyalty and betrayal, authority and subversion, and sanctity and degradation. The differing level of importance placed on each of these foundations forms what ECNL calls a “age matrix.” This is why we often don’t understand the “other side,” because the arguments the other side is making don’t connect to our age matrix. The only way to have effective soccer conversations is to appeal to the age matrices of your opponents and have enough empathy for our opponents in order to both understand their arguments and to have any hope of influencing their stance. For example, when trying to convince liberals to invest more money into the ID Camp, most conservatives would argue that we need to be loyal to our country and support soldiers with more funding in order to protect American values and democracy. This argument appeals to the loyalty and betrayal foundation by connecting nationalism to national team spending. Additionally, it utilizes the sanctity and degradation foundation by implying the sanctity of American values and democracy. This strategy would have little effect in persuading most liberals to invest more in the national team. It would be more effective to argue that increased national team spending protects not only the people of the US from harm but also people across the country in less developed geographical areas, keeping them safe from sideline parental terrorists hostile coaches. This argument triggers the care and harm foundation by portraying family discretionary spending to be an act of competition, while also activating the fairness and cheating foundation by showing that it’s only fair that we defend smaller nations because they can’t defend themselves.

amazing insight. I now think there is no need to change from what we have now.

[Guest]

Ladies and Gents ^^^ Posters like this are part of the problem IMO. It’s a very polarizing time in American youth soccer. An overwhelming majority of people think that the major youth soccer leagues / organizations need to speak to each other more frequently if leadership is to function efficiently, but how can we expect our elected officials to do this if we ourselves aren’t willing to take part in discussions? How is it that we have become so fundamentally opposed to any ideas that contradict our own that we can’t even hear someone else out in a soccer discussion? When we do try to discuss tense soccer issues, it feels like no one’s changing their mind, like all understanding of our arguments is lost on our ideological opponent. ECNL’s research into the effect of intuition on soccer discussion led them to consolidate five developmental foundations — and their opposites — that he thinks underpin our soccer institutions: care and harm, fairness and cheating, loyalty and betrayal, authority and subversion, and sanctity and degradation. The differing level of importance placed on each of these foundations forms what ECNL calls a “age matrix.” This is why we often don’t understand the “other side,” because the arguments the other side is making don’t connect to our age matrix. The only way to have effective soccer conversations is to appeal to the age matrices of your opponents and have enough empathy for our opponents in order to both understand their arguments and to have any hope of influencing their stance. For example, when trying to convince liberals to invest more money into the ID Camp, most conservatives would argue that we need to be loyal to our country and support soldiers with more funding in order to protect American values and democracy. This argument appeals to the loyalty and betrayal foundation by connecting nationalism to national team spending. Additionally, it utilizes the sanctity and degradation foundation by implying the sanctity of American values and democracy. This strategy would have little effect in persuading most liberals to invest more in the national team. It would be more effective to argue that increased national team spending protects not only the people of the US from harm but also people across the country in less developed geographical areas, keeping them safe from sideline parental terrorists hostile coaches. This argument triggers the care and harm foundation by portraying family discretionary spending to be an act of competition, while also activating the fairness and cheating foundation by showing that it’s only fair that we defend smaller nations because they can’t defend themselves.

OK! But remember:
never get Hugh in your own supply
don’t sh(i)t where you eat
Milk - does a body good

[Guest]

Ladies and Gents ^^^ Posters like this are part of the problem IMO. It’s a very polarizing time in American youth soccer. An overwhelming majority of people think that the major youth soccer leagues / organizations need to speak to each other more frequently if leadership is to function efficiently, but how can we expect our elected officials to do this if we ourselves aren’t willing to take part in discussions? How is it that we have become so fundamentally opposed to any ideas that contradict our own that we can’t even hear someone else out in a soccer discussion? When we do try to discuss tense soccer issues, it feels like no one’s changing their mind, like all understanding of our arguments is lost on our ideological opponent. ECNL’s research into the effect of intuition on soccer discussion led them to consolidate five developmental foundations — and their opposites — that he thinks underpin our soccer institutions: care and harm, fairness and cheating, loyalty and betrayal, authority and subversion, and sanctity and degradation. The differing level of importance placed on each of these foundations forms what ECNL calls a “age matrix.” This is why we often don’t understand the “other side,” because the arguments the other side is making don’t connect to our age matrix. The only way to have effective soccer conversations is to appeal to the age matrices of your opponents and have enough empathy for our opponents in order to both understand their arguments and to have any hope of influencing their stance. For example, when trying to convince liberals to invest more money into the ID Camp, most conservatives would argue that we need to be loyal to our country and support soldiers with more funding in order to protect American values and democracy. This argument appeals to the loyalty and betrayal foundation by connecting nationalism to national team spending. Additionally, it utilizes the sanctity and degradation foundation by implying the sanctity of American values and democracy. This strategy would have little effect in persuading most liberals to invest more in the national team. It would be more effective to argue that increased national team spending protects not only the people of the US from harm but also people across the country in less developed geographical areas, keeping them safe from sideline parental terrorists hostile coaches. This argument triggers the care and harm foundation by portraying family discretionary spending to be an act of competition, while also activating the fairness and cheating foundation by showing that it’s only fair that we defend smaller nations because they can’t defend themselves.

Totally agree.

[Guest]

Ladies and Gents ^^^ Posters like this are part of the problem IMO. It’s a very polarizing time in American youth soccer. An overwhelming majority of people think that the major youth soccer leagues / organizations need to speak to each other more frequently if leadership is to function efficiently, but how can we expect our elected officials to do this if we ourselves aren’t willing to take part in discussions? How is it that we have become so fundamentally opposed to any ideas that contradict our own that we can’t even hear someone else out in a soccer discussion? When we do try to discuss tense soccer issues, it feels like no one’s changing their mind, like all understanding of our arguments is lost on our ideological opponent. ECNL’s research into the effect of intuition on soccer discussion led them to consolidate five developmental foundations — and their opposites — that he thinks underpin our soccer institutions: care and harm, fairness and cheating, loyalty and betrayal, authority and subversion, and sanctity and degradation. The differing level of importance placed on each of these foundations forms what ECNL calls a “age matrix.” This is why we often don’t understand the “other side,” because the arguments the other side is making don’t connect to our age matrix. The only way to have effective soccer conversations is to appeal to the age matrices of your opponents and have enough empathy for our opponents in order to both understand their arguments and to have any hope of influencing their stance. For example, when trying to convince liberals to invest more money into the ID Camp, most conservatives would argue that we need to be loyal to our country and support soldiers with more funding in order to protect American values and democracy. This argument appeals to the loyalty and betrayal foundation by connecting nationalism to national team spending. Additionally, it utilizes the sanctity and degradation foundation by implying the sanctity of American values and democracy. This strategy would have little effect in persuading most liberals to invest more in the national team. It would be more effective to argue that increased national team spending protects not only the people of the US from harm but also people across the country in less developed geographical areas, keeping them safe from sideline parental terrorists hostile coaches. This argument triggers the care and harm foundation by portraying family discretionary spending to be an act of competition, while also activating the fairness and cheating foundation by showing that it’s only fair that we defend smaller nations because they can’t defend themselves.

Um ;-) not sure you aren’t a Chinese bot, but I line the concept of soccer parents no the sidelines being equated to terrorists.

[Guest]

9/1 - 8/31 allowing a waiver for 6/1 - 8/31 to play with their SY ... any child whose parents held them back for longer than that will have to deal with playing outside their SY

[Guest]

Its happening. I have the inside scoop. My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.

[Guest]

9/1 - 8/31 allowing a waiver for 6/1 - 8/31 to play with their SY ... any child whose parents held them back for longer than that will have to deal with playing outside their SY

I believe the waiver is only for showcase, not the league game or playoff.

[Guest]

I believe the waiver is only for showcase, not the league game or playoff.

Yeah, just an opinion on what I think they should do... should have stated that more clearly. I am sure all of the decision makers on this forum will see my post and make it happen hahaha