ECNL wants to switch back to school year from birth year

[Guest]

Give it a break. My daughter is a D1 starter in her grade, but a D3 benchwarmer in her birth year. Just change the rules and we will prove it!!

EXACTLY! This is why all the mouthy chest pumping January BY dads are freaking out.

[Guest]

EXACTLY! This is why all the mouthy chest pumping January BY dads are freaking out.

your emotional regulation implies you put pronouns in your email. No one is freaking out other than the poster (you?) insisting that BY is a big freaking problem.

Multiple posters over multiple posts have agreed it would be better to go back. What else can we say? In the meantime 7 years of recruiting have occurred, and will occur in this model until we hear otherwise. Multiple posts from those with Q4 born players have shared their experience and how it had some advantages.

TS readers can choose. Some will take input from those that successfully navigated the trail, and incorporate that into what they think is best for their D. Others will continue to argue with the cloud. We know which one you are.

[Guest]

ECNL allows 2 currently.

I think the rumor is that there would be 3-5 allowed to play down every year, not just during the trapped years. "Trapped players" have been thrown around to really mean Sep-Dec birthday players playing up in class, even in non-trapped years. This could result in a lot of club political drama, but it does begin to address some of the issues. Will the club use those spots to send strong players (who could play on the first team a year up) down to dominate? What if two players are on ENCL RL, and they send the weaker one down to play on ECNL just because he/she is smaller, during a recruiting year?

People are joking about the amount a player could improve in standing by moving down, but according to rankings there are lots of cases where a HS age ECNL-RL team can beat the ENCL team at the same club a year behind. Seems very plausible that a young player on that RL team might be among the best, and would become a key player on the NL team behind it.

Particularly on the boys side, I could see a cynical argument for keeping the BY cutoff. Soccer isn't the premier sport for the US's best male athletes. Football has class year cutoffs, basketball does, and baseball has a variety. Maybe USSF doesn't want to waste resources identifying the same Sep-Dec boys for extra development early, just to lose them to other sports. This would mostly apply to U12 and below, but USSF might have a reason for boys to keep it BY for now until the sport grows more at U13 and above.

[Guest]

I saw reference to yelling at clouds and it sent me to chat GPT. After about 10 mins of prompts grounding it in the issues, i asked it to simulate a podcast


Host: Welcome to today’s episode of “Youth Soccer Insights.” I’m your host, and today we have a special guest from the executive committee of a leading youth soccer organization. We’re going to discuss a critical policy decision about how we group our youth players. Thank you for joining us today!

Executive Committee Member: Thank you for having me. I’m excited to discuss this important topic with you and our listeners.

Host: Let’s dive right in. Can you briefly explain the current policy on grouping youth soccer players by birth year and why there’s a proposal to switch to grade year grouping?

Executive Committee Member: Sure! Currently, we group players by birth year, meaning all players born in the same calendar year are grouped together. This aligns with international standards. However, there’s a proposal to switch to grade year grouping, which would align players based on their school grade. This change is being considered to keep classmates together, making it easier for social interactions and logistics.

Host: That sounds like a significant change. What are the main reasons behind this proposal?

Executive Committee Member: The main reasons are to improve social cohesion among players, simplify logistics for families, and address issues related to college recruiting. Many parents and coaches feel that grouping by grade year would better support the players’ social and academic lives.

Host: Can you give us an example or metaphor to help our listeners understand the impact of this change?

Executive Committee Member: Imagine a school classroom where students are grouped by their birth year instead of their grade. It would be challenging for students to form strong friendships and work together on projects if they were constantly being shuffled based on their birth dates. Similarly, in soccer, keeping players with their classmates can enhance teamwork and camaraderie.

Host: That’s a great analogy. What are some of the potential benefits of switching to grade year grouping?

Executive Committee Member: The benefits include better alignment with school schedules, which can reduce conflicts between school and soccer activities. It also helps maintain social bonds among players, making the sport more enjoyable and accessible. Additionally, it can streamline the college recruiting process, as recruiters often look at players within the same academic year.

Host: Are there any challenges or risks associated with this change?

Executive Committee Member: Yes, there are some challenges. Transitioning to a new system can cause temporary disruption. We need to consider logistical issues like team formation and scheduling. There might also be financial implications, such as updating registration systems and rebranding efforts.

Host: How do you plan to address these challenges?

Executive Committee Member: We plan to develop a detailed transition plan, including clear timelines and milestones. Communication will be key, so we’ll keep all stakeholders informed throughout the process. We’ll also provide resources and support to help everyone adjust smoothly.

Host: What criteria will you use to evaluate the decision to switch to grade year grouping?

Executive Committee Member: We’ll consider several criteria, including alignment with our mission, stakeholder impact, logistical feasibility, financial implications, competitive fairness, and long-term sustainability. We’ll also measure stakeholder satisfaction through surveys and feedback.

Host: Based on the data and stakeholder input, what is the Task Force’s recommendation?

Executive Committee Member: The Task Force recommends switching to grade year grouping. This recommendation is supported by the majority of stakeholders and aligns with our mission to enhance player experience and development.

Host: What steps will you take to ensure a smooth transition if the decision is made to switch?
Executive Committee Member: We’ll develop a detailed transition plan, communicate the change effectively, and provide support and resources to all stakeholders. We’ll also establish a system for ongoing feedback and monitoring to make adjustments as needed.

Host: Thank you for sharing these insights. Any final thoughts for our listeners?
Executive Committee Member: We appreciate the support and feedback from our community. Our goal is to make the best decision for our players and their development. We’re committed to ensuring a smooth transition and enhancing the overall youth soccer experience.
Host: Thank you for joining us today. And thank you to our listeners for tuning in. Stay tuned for more episodes of “Youth Soccer Insights

[Guest]

@ChickenLittle, lmk if you want the prompts so you can chat with an entity that agrees with you. Will be as effective as chatting with us, but less frustrating for you

[Guest]

^Not biased at all. Great job ‘grounding’ it

[Guest]

I asked ChatGPT which grouping they would choose and it said straight birth year. Case closed. Issue settled.

[Guest]

I saw reference to yelling at clouds and it sent me to chat GPT. After about 10 mins of prompts grounding it in the issues, i asked it to simulate a podcast


Host: Welcome to today’s episode of “Youth Soccer Insights.” I’m your host, and today we have a special guest from the executive committee of a leading youth soccer organization. We’re going to discuss a critical policy decision about how we group our youth players. Thank you for joining us today!

Executive Committee Member: Thank you for having me. I’m excited to discuss this important topic with you and our listeners.

Host: Let’s dive right in. Can you briefly explain the current policy on grouping youth soccer players by birth year and why there’s a proposal to switch to grade year grouping?

Executive Committee Member: Sure! Currently, we group players by birth year, meaning all players born in the same calendar year are grouped together. This aligns with international standards. However, there’s a proposal to switch to grade year grouping, which would align players based on their school grade. This change is being considered to keep classmates together, making it easier for social interactions and logistics.

Host: That sounds like a significant change. What are the main reasons behind this proposal?

Executive Committee Member: The main reasons are to improve social cohesion among players, simplify logistics for families, and address issues related to college recruiting. Many parents and coaches feel that grouping by grade year would better support the players’ social and academic lives.

Host: Can you give us an example or metaphor to help our listeners understand the impact of this change?

Executive Committee Member: Imagine a school classroom where students are grouped by their birth year instead of their grade. It would be challenging for students to form strong friendships and work together on projects if they were constantly being shuffled based on their birth dates. Similarly, in soccer, keeping players with their classmates can enhance teamwork and camaraderie.

Host: That’s a great analogy. What are some of the potential benefits of switching to grade year grouping?

Executive Committee Member: The benefits include better alignment with school schedules, which can reduce conflicts between school and soccer activities. It also helps maintain social bonds among players, making the sport more enjoyable and accessible. Additionally, it can streamline the college recruiting process, as recruiters often look at players within the same academic year.

Host: Are there any challenges or risks associated with this change?

Executive Committee Member: Yes, there are some challenges. Transitioning to a new system can cause temporary disruption. We need to consider logistical issues like team formation and scheduling. There might also be financial implications, such as updating registration systems and rebranding efforts.

Host: How do you plan to address these challenges?

Executive Committee Member: We plan to develop a detailed transition plan, including clear timelines and milestones. Communication will be key, so we’ll keep all stakeholders informed throughout the process. We’ll also provide resources and support to help everyone adjust smoothly.

Host: What criteria will you use to evaluate the decision to switch to grade year grouping?

Executive Committee Member: We’ll consider several criteria, including alignment with our mission, stakeholder impact, logistical feasibility, financial implications, competitive fairness, and long-term sustainability. We’ll also measure stakeholder satisfaction through surveys and feedback.

Host: Based on the data and stakeholder input, what is the Task Force’s recommendation?

Executive Committee Member: The Task Force recommends switching to grade year grouping. This recommendation is supported by the majority of stakeholders and aligns with our mission to enhance player experience and development.

Host: What steps will you take to ensure a smooth transition if the decision is made to switch?
Executive Committee Member: We’ll develop a detailed transition plan, communicate the change effectively, and provide support and resources to all stakeholders. We’ll also establish a system for ongoing feedback and monitoring to make adjustments as needed.

Host: Thank you for sharing these insights. Any final thoughts for our listeners?
Executive Committee Member: We appreciate the support and feedback from our community. Our goal is to make the best decision for our players and their development. We’re committed to ensuring a smooth transition and enhancing the overall youth soccer experience.
Host: Thank you for joining us today. And thank you to our listeners for tuning in. Stay tuned for more episodes of “Youth Soccer Insights

Host: there doesn’t seem to be any issues with the system the way it is. It sounds like whiny b team parents are making noise again.

Executive Committee: Exactly. They need to just shut up and stop making excuses for their B team players..

Host: I thought so. Makes Sense.

[Guest]

Fly on the wall for thoughts and ideas being had by ECNL.
The thought currently is how do we get rid of or help players who fall into the trapped category, are we putting the best players per graduation year on the field, is there a way to make the game quality better and provide players with the best opportunity to be recruited and evaluated with their classmates. Now the big question is how do they pull this off when thinking about what’s best for getting kids to the next level. Each idea is not going to be a fan favorite by everyone. It sounds highly likely some change will be made for 25/26 with other s to follow over 2-3 year.

* one idea if a few trapped players are playing with their graduating group they must stay down for the full year. Players cant go ECNL 2010 one game and 2011 the next. If families and the club decide to “drop” it’s for the whole year. RL is a different story.

Expect a decision sometime early 2025.

[Guest]

Host: there doesn’t seem to be any issues with the system the way it is. It sounds like whiny b team parents are making noise again.

Executive Committee: Exactly. They need to just shut up and stop making excuses for their B team players..

Host: I thought so. Makes Sense.

Prior to this thread I was ambivalent about the change. Now I cannot wait for the September-December wildly talented but currently younger kids to drop down. Best of luck insufferable January dads everywhere.

[Guest]

Prior to this thread I was ambivalent about the change. Now I cannot wait for the September-December wildly talented but currently younger kids to drop down. Best of luck insufferable January dads everywhere.

preach!

[Guest]

Fly on the wall for thoughts and ideas being had by ECNL.
The thought currently is how do we get rid of or help players who fall into the trapped category, are we putting the best players per graduation year on the field, is there a way to make the game quality better and provide players with the best opportunity to be recruited and evaluated with their classmates. Now the big question is how do they pull this off when thinking about what’s best for getting kids to the next level. Each idea is not going to be a fan favorite by everyone. It sounds highly likely some change will be made for 25/26 with other s to follow over 2-3 year.

* one idea if a few trapped players are playing with their graduating group they must stay down for the full year. Players cant go ECNL 2010 one game and 2011 the next. If families and the club decide to “drop” it’s for the whole year. RL is a different story.

Expect a decision sometime early 2025.

Currently, trapped players can only 'play down' during the high school season. Once their regular age group returns for high school, they can no longer play with the younger group.

[Guest]

Fly on the wall for thoughts and ideas being had by ECNL.
The thought currently is how do we get rid of or help players who fall into the trapped category, are we putting the best players per graduation year on the field, is there a way to make the game quality better and provide players with the best opportunity to be recruited and evaluated with their classmates. Now the big question is how do they pull this off when thinking about what’s best for getting kids to the next level. Each idea is not going to be a fan favorite by everyone. It sounds highly likely some change will be made for 25/26 with other s to follow over 2-3 year.

* one idea if a few trapped players are playing with their graduating group they must stay down for the full year. Players cant go ECNL 2010 one game and 2011 the next. If families and the club decide to “drop” it’s for the whole year. RL is a different story.

Expect a decision sometime early 2025.

I see ECNLs thoughts as this:

We have success placing our kids in college.
We dominate the market.
We align with all of the governing bodies, including USSF.

None of those 3 will improve positively, from ECNLs standpoint, if they make the change.

-the trapped kids may get placed better in college (debatable), but there is only a fixed number of college spots each year. Any increase in spots given to trapped kids, will be offset by spots not given to other kids. Net gain of zero for ECNLs recruiting statistics.
-a change could negatively impact their marketshare, unknown - business decision makers generally don't like uncertainty.
-the change would put them out of alignment with the governing bodies

Given the above, what is ECNLs motivation to make this change.

[Guest]

MLS next does the same thing already with biobanding so they are also technically out of compliance with US club soccer. They seem to be doing just fine. I think the only people who don’t want change are the parents of kids who are just getting by with my kid is bigger and more athletic than the younger kids so they can keep a spot. Anyone who thinks kids playing with their graduating class is a problem just don’t want the pendulum shift to effect their kid.

[Guest]

Everyone on here is very focused on their own issues and stances. Look at the larger picture.

This problem doesn't exist in most states. Find another forum that has posted on this in any volume, or at all in the past week. Probably can't.

Even here, it looks like a 50/50 split on opinion.

So big picture, 1/2 of one small state wants change.

Not much impetus for change.