Get ready folks

soccerdad247 said:
The reality is, most MLSN clubs aren't using biobanding the way it was intended. It's a rule that isn't monitored and hence clubs abuse it. A majority of the clubs use it for 2 reasons:
1) Bio band down really good players to help weaker teams win games
2) Park players who are struggling at their own age group simply to not being good enough...and aren't struggling because of late development. This helps the club to avoid having the tough conversation about a player having to move down to a team 2, and ensure the clubs keeps the player fees as the parents will still see their kid on a MLS team.
Click to expand...
I agree that many clubs aren't using biobanding the way it was intended. However it's effect is working as intended.

MLSN players and coaches don't look at teams as age alone defined entities that can't change until the end of the season. This puts an emphasis on player ability instead of parent/player/coach connections. Although it's obvious and annoying when a competitor is playing players down for wins. It's also a competitive advantage for the of age players to learn from older players. Two sides of every coin.
 
With ECNL’s heavy presence in CA / high pool of talented kids playing given size of state and ability to play year round outdoors, and given the high percentage of CA kids that don’t start Kindergarten right upon turning 5 (even though they are allowed (but not required) to do so by 9/1 public school cutoff), does anyone else find it surprising that ECNL would opt to exclude the older August kids from playing with their enrolled grade? Losing all those August kids from the sport is a losing proposition for ECNL.
 
"Given the high propensity of California parents to try and game the system when enrolling their kid, isn't it weird that they might not be able to continue to do so in any age/grade - related contexts until they get their doctorate?"
 
SoccerSF said:
With ECNL’s heavy presence in CA / high pool of talented kids playing given size of state and ability to play year round outdoors, and given the high percentage of CA kids that don’t start Kindergarten right upon turning 5 (even though they are allowed (but not required) to do so by 9/1 public school cutoff), does anyone else find it surprising that ECNL would opt to exclude the older August kids from playing with their enrolled grade? Losing all those August kids from the sport is a losing proposition for ECNL.
Click to expand...

You are overly worried. Good Aug. players who can go to D1 have no issues playing up. They are the valuable players ECNL is looking for. The Aug. parents who complain most likely have a bubble player that will be impacted after the change.
 
Hey. Someone just told me that one of the considerations for picking the 9/1 date is that it is the date that England (which is one of the few countries not on BY...as the founders of futbol they are apparently given some grandfathered consideration) uses, and the reason this date was picked was to align with England. The hope is the MLS academies, by aligning the same date as England, might be persuaded to switch over if they won't get dinged by FIFA in international tournaments (which was one of the considerations for the original switch to by). That's why the Augusts were thrown (admittedly) over. Can anyone confirm if there's any truth to any of this?
 
BBB said:
I know MLS people think players Born in September have the most appeal because the pool of buyers is on a 9/1 system.
Click to expand...
That could be the impetus for a complete change, the US wants and needs to sell players to the premier league that come back and play on the NT's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top