ECNL wants to switch back to school year from birth year

[Guest]

It's easy to be rude, more difficult make a coherent argument. You claim playing with classmates is one of the big reasons for wanting to move to birth year. My daughter (who is a Q4) has never once mentioned having a difficult time playing with girls who are in a different grade. Many of them are only months apart in actual age. This is just a BS argument. You have other, more persuasive arguments, you don't need this manufactured one.

Again your singular situation doesn't negate the reality for a significant portion of the community. Q4 players are neither socially nor athletically stunted they are just younger. Period. Playing with graduation year solves problems that 30% of the ECNL families are concerned about and switching to graduation year helps many kids while harming none. And as much as people swear it doesn't impact recruiting it does. Sure Q4 players are recruited but at what additional cost and what schools did they miss out on because they have additional hurdles in the process. The change is happening and the data will be quickly and readily available. Give it 2-3 years post change and you can easily compare where the Q4 kids land compared to prior years. In any event if there is as you insist no problem then there certainly won't be a problem when they switch to graduation year.

[Guest]

Good that would get her to 5’3 or 5’4 the average height of a us woman. Not 5’8. So thanks for proving my point

Yeah except she went from 5'2 to 5'7. Her coaches were thrilled. Guess what she plays more now. This isn't rocket science and again there still hasn't been one reason offered as to why switching BACK to graduation year would be problematic.

[Guest]

Q1= Early bloomers, puberty first, growth spurt first, more attention from coaches. Told they are leaders because they are oldest. Get big ego, no grit, gain weight stop growing.., peak early and some gain weight or quit..Its a major generalization, but I see it a lot.

Q4= late bloomers, puberty last, late to hot growth spurt, overlooked, benched. Told they need to run faster to keep up, ignored, cut. Grow, gain grit, technical skills, gain speed, keep growing…peak later, want it more, no ego, team player, very coachable and humble.

I will recruit the Q4 kid with work ethic over the Q1 with RAE advantage and fragile ego.

The Q4 kids are passed over their whole life from u little through middle school on to recruiting years, however there are some coaches like myself who seek out those hard working team players over the Q1 “superstars” who are often not as good as they are built up by their coaches to be. Yes this birth year change was a big mistake. But until
ot is fixed tell your kid to work hard. There are coaches out there that will spot them.

[Guest]

Well said. Lots of people posting are determined to ignore what was actually said in the ECNL podcasts which started this whole thread, and what has come out recently in the market studies, as well as the new RAE study discussed at length in the podcast. Improving RAE was a key point of the USSF sales pitch to change to BY. According to ECNL, the new study shows that was a poor argument, as it has failed to help RAE. If you actually read that study and compare the numbers to studies prior to the switch, RAE has gotten worse. Market studies show participation rates are down for soccer, as well as retention rates. As someone else pointed out, *maybe* that's an inevitability given the novelty of surging sports like lacrosse. But hockey, tennis, and golf, which are also experiencing increased participation, are not as new. In the podcast, their sole remaining reason for BY was for talent identification for youth national teams. They addressed this, however, saying that those scouts should be able to accommodate for the difference in cutoffs. Despite the insistence from many here that problems don't exist, they clearly identified trapped years as a problem. They also clearly identified playing across emotional maturity lines associated with school class as a problem.

Another poster asked what is probably the right question - why would ECNL fix this alone if they are already turning customers away? One hint may be in the recent announcement of additional pre-ECNL leagues. Perhaps ECNL is trying to convince USSF to make the change, and if they don't ECNL might increasingly come for USYS territory in younger age groups.

There you go again using common sense and valid facts neither of which are welcome on TS! I have just hit the wall with this thread because it is clearly riddled with Q1 parents that are struggling with some hard truths. Hopefully someone will read your post and come to grips with the reality that many families are facing and why the switch back to graduation year is happening.

[Guest]

Again your singular situation doesn't negate the reality for a significant portion of the community. Q4 players are neither socially nor athletically stunted they are just younger. Period. Playing with graduation year solves problems that 30% of the ECNL families are concerned about and switching to graduation year helps many kids while harming none. And as much as people swear it doesn't impact recruiting it does. Sure Q4 players are recruited but at what additional cost and what schools did they miss out on because they have additional hurdles in the process. The change is happening and the data will be quickly and readily available. Give it 2-3 years post change and you can easily compare where the Q4 kids land compared to prior years. In any event if there is as you insist no problem then there certainly won't be a problem when they switch to graduation year.

My daughter and our family are part of your 30%, and we are not concerned. I think you are blowing this issue way out of proportion. Even if all the girls are in the same GY they can be nearly a year apart in age. This is not a strong argument. That said, I agree with the recruiting issue. Focus there.

[Guest]

Again with the weaponized ignorance. The poster clearly said classmates meaning and emphasized in parenthesis grade year. And I'm going to agree there is a big difference socially between grades in middle school when a large number of girls drop out. I like the OP am still waiting for an actual reason not to switch back to graduation year other than Q1 players might not be able to compete when they aren't the absolute oldest.

Pha Phuk Sake…. No One has tried to make the case for BY, stop asking for it. You 2 are too phucking dumm to accept that
a) ECNL mat not be as motivated as you
b) You are using it as an excuse. Deal with it, like everyone else has.

BY is not the primary reason any girl wasn’t recruited to a D1’program, and YES, i am being elitist in specifying D1, because thats what drives the ECNL and GA brand. I have also been very consistent on this point.

The case of your anecdotal trapped junior who is unable to get college coach attention in BOTH her Sophomore and Junior year is NOT a BY problem. If coaches told you that, they were simply being nice. They have no problem traipsing across multiple fields or even changing venues to see the players they want to see.

[Guest]

Again your singular situation doesn't negate the reality for a significant portion of the community. Q4 players are neither socially nor athletically stunted they are just younger. Period. Playing with graduation year solves problems that 30% of the ECNL families are concerned about and switching to graduation year helps many kids while harming none. And as much as people swear it doesn't impact recruiting it does. Sure Q4 players are recruited but at what additional cost and what schools did they miss out on because they have additional hurdles in the process. The change is happening and the data will be quickly and readily available. Give it 2-3 years post change and you can easily compare where the Q4 kids land compared to prior years. In any event if there is as you insist no problem then there certainly won't be a problem when they switch to graduation year.

This is such a ludicrous argument. There are going to be maturity and physical differences regardless if we separate by BY or GY or any other year. Even girls born on the same day can have these differences. I guarantee you if I lined up all the girls on my daughters' soccer teams you would not consistently guess which ones were Q1 v Q4.

[Guest]

There you go again using common sense and valid facts neither of which are welcome on TS! I have just hit the wall with this thread because it is clearly riddled with Q1 parents that are struggling with some hard truths. Hopefully someone will read your post and come to grips with the reality that many families are facing and why the switch back to graduation year is happening.

show me what you believe is a post from a Q1 parent. I have been one of the most active voices on this thread and mine is a Q4.

We made it work. It will be great to go back, but until it does Stop making excuses.

[Guest]

QUOTE=Guest;n4665279]

-Removed

Another poster asked what is probably the right question - why would ECNL fix this alone if they are already turning customers away? One hint may be in the recent announcement of additional pre-ECNL leagues. Perhaps ECNL is trying to convince USSF to make the change, and if they don't ECNL might increasingly come for USYS territory in younger age groups. [/QUOTE]

this is a valid point. Apologies for calling you Dumm.
ECNL has shown they want to reach further down the pyramid where I agree BY issues are amplified

[Guest]

QUOTE=Guest;n4665279]

-Removed

Another poster asked what is probably the right question - why would ECNL fix this alone if they are already turning customers away? One hint may be in the recent announcement of additional pre-ECNL leagues. Perhaps ECNL is trying to convince USSF to make the change, and if they don't ECNL might increasingly come for USYS territory in younger age groups.

this is a valid point. Apologies for calling you Dumm.
ECNL has shown they want to reach further down the pyramid where I agree BY issues are amplified[/QUOTE]

No, it's not a valid point. All it does is shift who is the youngest. You are still going to have some kids who are nearly a year younger than their teammates regardless of BY or GY. That's why this is a nonsense argument.

[Guest]

It's Official!!!

[Guest]

Yeah except she went from 5'2 to 5'7. Her coaches were thrilled. Guess what she plays more now. This isn't rocket science and again there still hasn't been one reason offered as to why switching BACK to graduation year would be problematic.

Ok, that’s a very rare case and if she grew that fast she likely had major coordination issues so I’m sure there was significant catch up time. One anomaly doesn’t negate the rule. In fact, I would argue it kept her where she should’ve been until she got bigger and better

[Guest]

show me what you believe is a post from a Q1 parent. I have been one of the most active voices on this thread and mine is a Q4.

We made it work. It will be great to go back, but until it does Stop making excuses.

I'm not the same poster, but you're probably both fairly correct here and just splitting hairs. The arguments in favor of the switch can easily come across as "excuses" for not achieving a better outcome for one's own child. In the face of some posters denying the very existence of problems, many respond by over-inflating the magnitude of the problems. And yes, despite their claims, some of the posters denying the existence of any problems on any level are likely Q1-Q3 parents, consciously or subconsciously, trying to keep new potential "best" players off their team. At minimum, I've seen it with my own eyes at the middle school age range. While the best players aren't going to fall off the bottom of the A team, in many cases they may be changing positions as your new striker, CB, or CAM (one of the premier positions) is coming down. At high school ages, perhaps the maturity advantages are gone, but remember that it takes all those years for RAE to stabilize. Those B team or bench A team kids need years to erase the early advantages and earn those spots. And the clock is ticking for them.

[Guest]

Are you truly pretending the vast majority of ECNL players didn't start on the Central Lancaster team as U littles?

Not many of this years trapped Blue 8th graders nor their 9th grade counterparts were Lancaster or Acton Ulittles. 2 of 22 if my memory serves. The other 20 played ulittle at other clubs. Many coming to either white or blue at U12 thru U14. Some moving to Stars just this coming season.

[Guest]

Well said. Lots of people posting are determined to ignore what was actually said in the ECNL podcasts which started this whole thread, and what has come out recently in the market studies, as well as the new RAE study discussed at length in the podcast. Improving RAE was a key point of the USSF sales pitch to change to BY. According to ECNL, the new study shows that was a poor argument, as it has failed to help RAE. If you actually read that study and compare the numbers to studies prior to the switch, RAE has gotten worse. Market studies show participation rates are down for soccer, as well as retention rates. As someone else pointed out, *maybe* that's an inevitability given the novelty of surging sports like lacrosse. But hockey, tennis, and golf, which are also experiencing increased participation, are not as new. In the podcast, their sole remaining reason for BY was for talent identification for youth national teams. They addressed this, however, saying that those scouts should be able to accommodate for the difference in cutoffs. Despite the insistence from many here that problems don't exist, they clearly identified trapped years as a problem. They also clearly identified playing across emotional maturity lines associated with school class as a problem.

Another poster asked what is probably the right question - why would ECNL fix this alone if they are already turning customers away? One hint may be in the recent announcement of additional pre-ECNL leagues. Perhaps ECNL is trying to convince USSF to make the change, and if they don't ECNL might increasingly come for USYS territory in younger age groups.

Well expressed ideas.

I agree that perhaps ECNL is trying to convince USSF to change. I see that as the only way ECNL would change. But then the question becomes what is USSFs motivation to change, and how long would it take that bureaucracy to change? USSF may be more sensitive to declining overall participation rates but I believe they can see the bigger picture of a dynamic youth landscape and not pin an excessive amount of the blame on birth year issues. I think they are more focused on the lack of support and excitement generated from the USWNT post 2019. Success breeds interest. Failure breeds indifference.

As for original change, it was less about RAE and more about aligning with international age groupings. And wholly about selling DA and GDA to be the top league since they were the ‘pathway’ to international competition.

All of these reasons are less compelling now, but change is difficult and takes time with multiple large organizations who do not have a clearly defined motivation to do so. (The organization’s motivation not yours).

As always, hope for the best, plan for the worse.