Get ready folks

[RandomSoccerFan]

I was bored. Here's what some of the data looks like. They are all closer at the 2012B level, but show significantly larger separation by 2010B. Top level of NPL (ECNL-RL) actually pips ECNL at the 2010B age level by SR average, but both are weaker by quite a bit than MLS N. At the MLS N level, the academy teams are so much stronger than the others. Which shouldn't be surprising to most. The players on the academy teams pay nothing, and most are in online school so they can train daily with the team. Quakes practice starts at 9:30 AM on weekdays, which probably isn't conducive to a "normal" high school experience. They ought to become the best teams - because if they weren't, what's the point?

 

[Orca10]

I was bored. Here's what some of the data looks like. They are all closer at the 2012B level, but show significantly larger separation by 2010B. Top level of NPL (ECNL-RL) actually pips ECNL at the 2010B age level by SR average, but both are weaker by quite a bit than MLS N. At the MLS N level, the academy teams are so much stronger than the others. Which shouldn't be surprising to most. The players on the academy teams pay nothing, and most are in online school so they can train daily with the team. Quakes practice starts at 9:30 AM on weekdays, which probably isn't conducive to a "normal" high school experience. They ought to become the best teams - because if they weren't, what's the point?

View attachment 24165

View attachment 24166View attachment 24171View attachment 24169
View attachment 24167View attachment 24170View attachment 24168

We homeschool our kids, so mine are able to pop into the backyard and kick the ball against the wall a lot. Not anytime they want, but definitely a lot more than kids at school. I’m pretty sure this alone is a big factor as to why my kid has been one of the players on his team who has developed most over the past year.

Now, add in focused, daily training at optimal times from coaches who are likely on par with the best that non-academy clubs can offer, add in nutrition and fitness training which I assume they get. The kids are already great players.

To your comment, if they aren’t turning out the best teams, they’re probably bad at their jobs.

 

[NorCalDad]

I was bored. Here's what some of the data looks like. They are all closer at the 2012B level, but show significantly larger separation by 2010B. Top level of NPL (ECNL-RL) actually pips ECNL at the 2010B age level by SR average, but both are weaker by quite a bit than MLS N. At the MLS N level, the academy teams are so much stronger than the others. Which shouldn't be surprising to most. The players on the academy teams pay nothing, and most are in online school so they can train daily with the team. Quakes practice starts at 9:30 AM on weekdays, which probably isn't conducive to a "normal" high school experience. They ought to become the best teams - because if they weren't, what's the point?

View attachment 24165

View attachment 24166View attachment 24171View attachment 24169
View attachment 24167View attachment 24170View attachment 24168

I went through the same exercise as you did. A 1.72 delta in SR vs 1.53 is pretty dang close. The ranking deltas show a similar impact. What I'm saying is that over the last year and a half to two years, more "better" players are going to MLSN teams out of the gate and a lot of older players (U15 and older) are moving to MLSN clubs. Ultimately I'm saying the deltas weren't as wide historically and that there's been this pretty significant movement towards MLSN. This is why I wish I had access to all of the SR data -- would love to put some graphs together.

I'm not really looking at NPL as that's a harder one to compute giving how many tables there are and that they vary pretty wildly at the younger ages. That said, I do think for some of the bottom clubs in ECNL they should consider just doing NPL. I think it's pretty disingenuous to do otherwise -- unless they're in some kind of massive transition period (new DoC, new methodology, etc).

I do think if you combine that with the CalNorth run X2 leagues and the GA partnership....this could become a ECNL/NorCal vs MLSN/GA/CalNorth battle. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

But I digress -- we're way off topic now.

 

[Carlsbad7]

I went through the same exercise as you did. A 1.72 delta in SR vs 1.53 is pretty dang close. The ranking deltas show a similar impact. What I'm saying is that over the last year and a half to two years, more "better" players are going to MLSN teams out of the gate and a lot of older players (U15 and older) are moving to MLSN clubs. Ultimately I'm saying the deltas weren't as wide historically and that there's been this pretty significant movement towards MLSN. This is why I wish I had access to all of the SR data -- would love to put some graphs together.

I'm not really looking at NPL as that's a harder one to compute giving how many tables there are and that they vary pretty wildly at the younger ages. That said, I do think for some of the bottom clubs in ECNL they should consider just doing NPL. I think it's pretty disingenuous to do otherwise -- unless they're in some kind of massive transition period (new DoC, new methodology, etc).

I do think if you combine that with the CalNorth run X2 leagues and the GA partnership....this could become a ECNL/NorCal vs MLSN/GA/CalNorth battle. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

But I digress -- we're way off topic now.

I have a younger younger playing and this summer went to a big tournament that was both boys and girls.

I immediately noticed how many more MLSN affiliated club boys teams there were compared to anything else. I would imagine that this is why you're seeing MLSN wins over other league affiliated clubs.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

I went through the same exercise as you did. A 1.72 delta in SR vs 1.53 is pretty dang close. The ranking deltas show a similar impact. What I'm saying is that over the last year and a half to two years, more "better" players are going to MLSN teams out of the gate and a lot of older players (U15 and older) are moving to MLSN clubs. Ultimately I'm saying the deltas weren't as wide historically and that there's been this pretty significant movement towards MLSN. This is why I wish I had access to all of the SR data -- would love to put some graphs together.

I'm not really looking at NPL as that's a harder one to compute giving how many tables there are and that they vary pretty wildly at the younger ages. That said, I do think for some of the bottom clubs in ECNL they should consider just doing NPL. I think it's pretty disingenuous to do otherwise -- unless they're in some kind of massive transition period (new DoC, new methodology, etc).

I do think if you combine that with the CalNorth run X2 leagues and the GA partnership....this could become a ECNL/NorCal vs MLSN/GA/CalNorth battle. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

But I digress -- we're way off topic now.

Agree with some, but not necessarily with all. For one thing, Norcal ECNL Boys is not good (defined as elite, top percentile, or whatever metric is chosen). It is roughly equivalent to NPL, without all of the costs and restrictions of ECNL. Anyone who is serious about the sport has already made the move the MLS N. Anyone who hasn't, is instead wasting their money and time. It's not only the bottom ECNL teams that should consider NPL, the top teams would still have a challenge in NPL, let alone mid-table and below. There aren't enough kids available to support multiple "top" leagues, all intended to be high quality. X2 is just another league that will split the available talent between itself, ECNL, NPL, or even EA.

I'm not sure the deltas are wider now than they were 2-3 years ago, it seems they've always been that way for U15+. It does seem that they used to be closer for the first U13 year, and now even at that age there is a more measurable difference.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

I'm not sure the deltas are wider now than they were 2-3 years ago, it seems they've always been that way for U15+. It does seem that they used to be closer for the first U13 year, and now even at that age there is a more measurable difference.

(Quoting myself as I hit the 4-min timer.)

What is new is all of the teams calling themselves "Pre-ECNL" in the U11-U12 ranges, and maybe that's why the ratings separation is starting a little earlier.

 

[NorCalDad]

Agree with some, but not necessarily with all. For one thing, Norcal ECNL Boys is not good (defined as elite, top percentile, or whatever metric is chosen). It is roughly equivalent to NPL, without all of the costs and restrictions of ECNL. Anyone who is serious about the sport has already made the move the MLS N. Anyone who hasn't, is instead wasting their money and time. It's not only the bottom ECNL teams that should consider NPL, the top teams would still have a challenge in NPL, let alone mid-table and below. There aren't enough kids available to support multiple "top" leagues, all intended to be high quality. X2 is just another league that will split the available talent between itself, ECNL, NPL, or even EA.

I'm not sure the deltas are wider now than they were 2-3 years ago, it seems they've always been that way for U15+. It does seem that they used to be closer for the first U13 year, and now even at that age there is a more measurable difference.

I do think the top 2-3 ECNL teams for each age group would do well in their respective MLSN tables...like mid-table or higher. I think this is probably similar to GA and ECNL on the girl's side. X2 will allow MLSN clubs to have more flexibility between NorCal and CalNorth participation. They could even expand X2 to more clubs than the MLSN founding clubs. I think in some ways this is a reaction to ECNL becoming more integrated with NorCal.

 

[Offside no S]

The large roster issue doesn't happen just once for the trapped players. They face it the last two years of their club careers: First, during their junior year when and the older trapped players drop to their team; and second, as a senior and they have to drop to the younger team.

This doesn't affect just 2-3 players a year. This is 5/12 or 41% of the players. This is two years of playing on a team with maybe 22 players. Sure, maybe the senior year doesn't matter so much. But chances are that the junior year will be critically important - and these kids will be jockeying for playing time at a game in AZ against teammates that don't care and may choose not to show up with no notice.

You realize your math on how many players are affected only works if there's an equal distribution of birth dates throughout the year? This isn't very common.

nope, not true for the 10,000th time...the number of trapped players is greatly reduced with SY.

But does it? Do you have actual numbers or are you just guesstimating?

 

[Offside no S]

Handful? Maybe you and I have a different definition of handful...

Assuming the SY cutoff date will be 8/1 if the change is ever made, the only trapped players remaining will be in geographies where school age cutoff is earlier than 8/1 (e.g. if school cutoff is 7/1, July birth date kids will be trapped). Geographies in the US where school start is before 8/1 is a small minority (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/25/back-to-school-dates-u-s/).

Currently, approximate one-third of players are in trapped bucket with the 1/1 BY cutoff (assuming equal participation by month). A change to SY cutoff of 8/1 would reduce the percent of trapped players down to low single digits. Approximately 30% decrease.

Given there are approximately 3.5 million children playing soccer in the US (https://projectplay.org/youth-sports/facts/participation-rates), a 30% reduction represents ~1,000,000 kids impacted. Even if you focus on a subset of the population (age, rec vs club, etc.) or question the assumptions (i.e. participation by month or age is not equal so the improvement would only be 20%), hundreds of thousands of children would still be impacted. And that's only if you look at the current snapshot in time. Factor in the next generation of 3.5 million children, and the next...certainly not my definition of "a handful of kids."

This is all done with the assumption that a team's birthdates are evenly distributed across a year. In my experience, this is not how it happens in practice. When we're talking about trapped players, we're not talking about all of soccer - we're only talking about a select number of U15 and U19 players. I'd be curious to have US Soccer release actual numbers of trapped players, and break it down per league, gender, and age level. I don't think that 3.5M is distributed across each of the 13 years a kid can play either. My guess is that a fair majority of those players are in U12 and below.

The parents who are yelling the loudest about this change are the ones whose kids have fall birthdays and will supposedly benefit from the change. It's a shame that they don't understand that this adjustment may come at a detriment to others and will 100% create chaos for ALL kids. (It really makes no difference for my kid, for the record.) It will also be a huge distraction to realign teams for the ones entering/at recruitment ages. I just don't see how the juice is worth the squeeze on this.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

It would be easier if Mark provided an SR API, but it just takes a little scrolling on your phone to get totals for # of teams in the US. To be on SR's radar, they have to be a competitive soccer team, and have their results available online somewhere. This seems to be most all competitive teams, and it is a very rare case where you run across a competitive team that isn't listed at all in SR. However, it doesn't include all of the many, many teams that are out there that play in leagues that aren't "competitive" and don't have their results tracked online. I estimated 7v7 teams to have 12 kids, 9v9 teams to have 14, and 11v11 to have 18. I imagine those are reasonably close to avg roster size, but people can certainly estimate however they'd choose. I come up with 1.3M kids in the 2017 to 07/06 age brackets playing competitive soccer in the US. Both B and G peak at the number of players in 2012B & 2012G, the numbers go up as they age until that bracket, and go down as they age past that bracket. There are less kids in the 07/06 bracket than the 2008 bracket, even though the older bracket contains two years.

 

[NorCalDad]

This is all done with the assumption that a team's birthdates are evenly distributed across a year. In my experience, this is not how it happens in practice. When we're talking about trapped players, we're not talking about all of soccer - we're only talking about a select number of U15 and U19 players. I'd be curious to have US Soccer release actual numbers of trapped players, and break it down per league, gender, and age level. I don't think that 3.5M is distributed across each of the 13 years a kid can play either. My guess is that a fair majority of those players are in U12 and below.

The parents who are yelling the loudest about this change are the ones whose kids have fall birthdays and will supposedly benefit from the change. It's a shame that they don't understand that this adjustment may come at a detriment to others and will 100% create chaos for ALL kids. (It really makes no difference for my kid, for the record.) It will also be a huge distraction to realign teams for the ones entering/at recruitment ages. I just don't see how the juice is worth the squeeze on this.

For what it's worth, August is typically the highest birth rate month. Usually September and October are in the top 4-5 as well. I think if anything this would amplify the argument that trapped players are a real concern. But I also think it's fair to distinguish between a trapped player and kid that just wants to be able to play with their friends in the same grade. The former is a huge bummer, the later you probably have kids losing interest sooner than if there was SY groupings.

None of my kids would be impacted by the SY change. I really couldn't care less if it stays BY or SY, but I can certainly see the argument for SY. I think it's probably safe to say that the parents loudly arguing for BY also have kids that would be impacted .

 

[BBB]

Just listened to newest ECNL Pod... Majority of US Soccer AYSO US Club will be on 9/1 for 26.

 

[SoccerSF]

Just listened to newest ECNL Pod... Majority of US Soccer AYSO US Club will be on 9/1 for With an 8/1 cutoff

With an 8/1 cutoff August born kids who are young for their grade could opt to play up to be aligned with their grade (or not). They would have options. But with a 9/1 cutoff the older August kids don’t have an option. They remain trapped with the grade above their own grade, and even worse than in birth year because their 9/1 to 12/31 classmates are no longer trapped with them. This can't be the intended outcome with a move back to school year. Waivers to play down with your grade could also be a solution for older August kids but young August kids playing up is simpler as no waiver is required to play up. Or do 9/1 to 7/31 cutoff and let August born kids play with their grade (up or down).

 

[CAZZZ]

With an 8/1 cutoff August born kids who are young for their grade could opt to play up to be aligned with their grade (or not). They would have options. But with a 9/1 cutoff the older August kids don’t have an option. They remain trapped with the grade above their own grade, and even worse than in birth year because their 9/1 to 12/31 classmates are no longer trapped with them. This can't be the intended outcome with a move back to school year. Waivers to play down with your grade could also be a solution for older August kids but young August kids playing up is simpler as no waiver is required to play up. Or do 9/1 to 7/31 cutoff and let August born kids play with their grade (up or down).

You have Aug. kid

 

[DeaconSoccer12]

Link to the podcast:Breaking the Lines Podcast

Interesting listen. Sounds like things should be somewhat settled by March. I do think its strange it sounds like 9/1 will be the date instead of 8/1. Its going to make for a weird season for 2025 with many kids in sort of a holding pattern for the year anticipating moving down if they are a fall birthday (or deciding whether to play up in 26).

 

[Derek1800]

With an 8/1 cutoff August born kids who are young for their grade could opt to play up to be aligned with their grade (or not). They would have options. But with a 9/1 cutoff the older August kids don’t have an option. They remain trapped with the grade above their own grade, and even worse than in birth year because their 9/1 to 12/31 classmates are no longer trapped with them. This can't be the intended outcome with a move back to school year. Waivers to play down with your grade could also be a solution for older August kids but young August kids playing up is simpler as no waiver is required to play up. Or do 9/1 to 7/31 cutoff and let August born kids play with their grade (up or down).

How can you pitch the whole play with your friend’s mental model and then don’t align the dates to support it. In my SoCal school district most Aug birthdays are down a grade as they are opted to start Kindergarten a year later. This means they will be stuck. But again not surprising US Soccer leadership keeps bungling decision after decision with no logic. At least none of this matters for MLS Next on the bright side.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

For the millionth time (in this thread, let alone every other thread on this topic), whatever date is chosen - kids that are in a school district that have a different cut-off date, may be in a different grade than expected. If the cut-off date is identical, there are the least amount of kids that are likely to be in a different grade. It also depends how strictly that cut-off date for schooling is followed, which varies widely with geography. This is the case whether the date is Jun 1, July 1, Aug 1, Sep 1, or any other.

There is no "right" answer nationwide, as there isn't a one. There certainly is an optimal answer, that if chosen the least amount of kids will be in conflict between the soccer cut-off date and their school cut-off date, and hopefully there is thought in trying to get close. But any individual arguing for what's best for their area as being best for all is a little myopic.

 

[Carlsbad7]

For the millionth time (in this thread, let alone every other thread on this topic), whatever date is chosen - kids that are in a school district that have a different cut-off date, may be in a different grade than expected. If the cut-off date is identical, there are the least amount of kids that are likely to be in a different grade. It also depends how strictly that cut-off date for schooling is followed, which varies widely with geography. This is the case whether the date is Jun 1, July 1, Aug 1, Sep 1, or any other.

There is no "right" answer nationwide, as there isn't a one. There certainly is an optimal answer, that if chosen the least amount of kids will be in conflict between the soccer cut-off date and their school cut-off date, and hopefully there is thought in trying to get close. But any individual arguing for what's best for their area as being best for all is a little myopic.

Welcome to why not tieing cutoff dates to kids year in school makes a lot of sense for soccer leagues/clubs.

BTW you could make the cutoff 7/1 and then it works for everyone + it's not really associated with a specific school cutoff date. The problem with this is some players that were a grade up in school (July to Sept) could play with a grade down. Which just creates a different type of horror for overly involved parents. These type of players would want to play "up" by the time they were getting recruited by college coaches so they know what year they graduate from the team they're playing on.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

BTW you could make the cutoff 7/1 and then it works for everyone

You and I may have a different definition of works for everyone. Clearly there would be many people annoyed with any date that is chosen, due to all of the reasons discussed endlessly here. If it doesn't even directly affect them - the fact that it would affect *other* players and in turn then affect their own team, is reason enough to dislike whatever solution is landed on.

 

[Carlsbad7]

You and I may have a different definition of works for everyone. Clearly there would be many people annoyed with any date that is chosen, due to all of the reasons discussed endlessly here. If it doesn't even directly affect them - the fact that it would affect *other* players and in turn then affect their own team, is reason enough to dislike whatever solution is landed on.

Agree with "you can't win" type comments.