I love it when they bring up football - where kids are routinely held back for the athletic advantage it brings. And yes they do it for just that reason before first grade.
BTW, it would be interesting to see what the average age of the non-medical, freshman redshirt is. Disproportionally the younger ones would be my guess.
What is the cutoff date in your states? In CA I believe it is 1 October. Guess not - found a list:
They are all over the place. Which one do we use? Don't you think it is really sick for those people in Connecticut to hold back kids with December birthdays? Guess they should all move to Missouri.
Kind of seems like what I said about August being reasonable makes a lot of sense given that there are states that require the kids to be 5 by August 1st and a whole lot of states that require them to be 5 by September 1st.
In order to enter kindergarten, children must be age five in all states. The following are a list of cut -off dates by which the child must have turned five in order to qualify for kindergarten.
Alabama- September 1
Alaska- August 15
Arizona- September 1
Arkansas-September 15
British Columbia, Canada- December 31
California-December 3
Colorado- September 15
Connecticut-January 1
Delaware
Florida-September 1
Georgia- September 1
Hawai'i-December 31
Idaho- September 1
Illinois-September 1
Indiana- JULY 1 (moved from June 1 -- SB157 to roll back to Sept 1 month-by-month over 3 yrs to Sept 1 starting 99/00 July 1; 00/01 Aug 1; 2001/02 Sept1)
Iowa- September 1 or 15
Kansas-August 31
Kentucky-October 1
Louisiana- September 30 (except Orleans Parish 12/31)
Maine-October 15
Maryland-Entering kindergartners must be 5 by Dec. 31
Massachusetts-September 1
Michigan-December 1
Minnesota-September 1
Mississippi-September 1
Missouri-AUGUST 1 (moved from July 1)
Montana-December 2
Nebraska-October 15
Nevada-September 30
New Hamshire-September 30
New Jersey-November 30
New Mexico
New York-November 30
North Carolina-October 16
North Dakota- December 2
Ohio-September 30
Oklahoma- September 1
Oregon-September 1
Pennsylvania (dates vary from district to district)
Rhode Island- Variable from September 1 to December 31
South Carolina- September 1
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas-September 1
Utah-August 31
Vermont-dates vary from 9/1 to 1/1
Virginia-September 30
Washington- August 31
West Virginia- September 1
Wisconsin-September 1
Wyoming
District of Columbia
Puerto Rico- September 1
Department of Defense (DOD)-October 31 (changed from December 31)
I believe in the Dominican you have to be 7 by July 1st to enter Kindergarten but they list you as 4.
quote:Originally posted by TPM:
The problem is that most folks don't like those options, and because of transfer rules it does make it more difficult to transfer into a D1 program from other divisions or another D1, but I don't see that being a problem, some do.
What I meant in the above is that some don't like other options available besides D1. I don't get where some find it a problem playing at JUCO, D2,D3, NAIA, lots of great programs with great schools to consider.
CADad,
In the state where I come from, you will find many football players have been retained at some time or another during their childhood years, usually for academic reasons more so than any other reason.
In our state, believe the cutoff is Aug 31 (or was when son began kindergarten).
TPM,
You're right they were all held back for academic reasons. BTW, I'm selling shares in a toll bridge. It's located in Brooklyn and it is a great investment.
You're right they were all held back for academic reasons. BTW, I'm selling shares in a toll bridge. It's located in Brooklyn and it is a great investment.
Not sure of one of some of your comments, but I have stated that I see no reason for holding school entrance for social or immaturity reasons, never said anything about doing it for sports.
I do beleive you will find descrepancies due to state funded pre K programs.
It's a parental choice and one shouldn't always assume someone was older when they graduated because the parents wanted an athletic edge, might be more for academic reasons.
Back when son and daughter were young you would find big grade decrepencies because of the high influx of those locating to FL from other states. They were actually in the minority of FL born babies. Despite birthdates, if a child was already in a grade he automatically entered that grade. For baseball for elementary and middle school son was always at the younger end, yet he managed to do just fine as did most. I never really thought about it, and I don't think anyone else did either. They just went out and played for fun, that's just what they did back then.
I do beleive you will find descrepancies due to state funded pre K programs.
It's a parental choice and one shouldn't always assume someone was older when they graduated because the parents wanted an athletic edge, might be more for academic reasons.
Back when son and daughter were young you would find big grade decrepencies because of the high influx of those locating to FL from other states. They were actually in the minority of FL born babies. Despite birthdates, if a child was already in a grade he automatically entered that grade. For baseball for elementary and middle school son was always at the younger end, yet he managed to do just fine as did most. I never really thought about it, and I don't think anyone else did either. They just went out and played for fun, that's just what they did back then.
quote:Originally posted by Prime9:
Sandlotmom,
Great summary to the essence of the thread that many seemed to miss or just ignored.
Well stated!!
Prime9 - what was the point that was missed?
If my son was only 6-4, 215lbs and hit them 420 ft when he was a sophmore in high school, he could have picked any college in the nation. Moreover, he would be a millionaire right now. The problem is he's not that profile. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, wouldn't this be a Merry Christmas? Is that the point we missed?
I don't get the point at all that some, since they lack the desire to play JUCO are missing out on baseball opportunites and/or academic opportunites frankly. Who said juco was the only option btw? None of us can change when we hit our physical growth spurt. None of us can change our age. We all can do lots and lots to improve our skills and find programs that are a good fit for those respective skills - athletically and academically. Dustin Pedrioia is probably shorter than many of the Moms who post on this site. Same for David Eckstein. When either of those hit their growth spurt someone please let me know.
fanofgame's son went to a juco last year and is now playing for the USC Trojans - a high end academic PAC 10 school. That was his solution to his growth spurt problem. Another player finds a high-end academic D2, D3, or NAIA school that also has a great baseball program and he finds his fit that way. Still yet another player walks-on at a school because he is determined to prove a bunch of people wrong.
Notice none of these ended their baseball careers. How does that decision even get made btw? Academically, my schools of choice are Stanford, Arizona State, Vanderbilt, Georgia Tech, and Rice. If those schools don't recruit me, woe is me my baseball career is over?
Some of us are offended that some feel their kids have been short-changed somehow due to age or conversely look down on others that may have held their kids back for legitimate reasons. People want it both ways - ask workinghard. When something does not go his way, he has no problem finding a "reason" other than talent or desire. When things go their way, it must be their son's talent and hard work.
Mine was 147 lbs and still 16 years old when his junior season ended. There were no D1 calls on July 1st when he was still 16 years old. His only recruiting interest was from one D3 school which was far from his ideal "choice." End of story? Baseball career over? Far from it.
TPM: for many players that wish to stay in state, D2,D3, and NAIA schools (in their state) are not an option because they are financially out of reach for their families even with academic $$ promised.
ClevelandDad: If you use phenoms such as Pedroia and Eckstein, you only water down your argument. They are both famous for being small and talented. Most *college* players don't have the talent that those two players do never mind high school players. We aren't talking about becoming a phenom, we are talking about trying to become a college player.
You are right you can't change your age, but you can (possibly) change the high school year in which you hit your growth spurt. Regarding choices if not chosen for a D1 school...see my comment to TPM about D2, D3 and NAIA schools. Sure players can choose to a)go out of state, b)go into debt just to play baseball, but many don't want this choice and haven't been given any other options so they choose to put other priorities first ahead of baseball. One more year of growth (notice I didn't say age) could have opened up options for the younger player that lives in a state without high end D3 academics or without the financial means to go to an expensive school.
BTW No one is saying it will *always* make the difference or that no player can overcome being a younger player. What I am saying is that having a late growth spurt can be a disadvantage during the recruitement process when baseball is not the number one college factor.
Also, I don't believe anyone is saying that *all* parents of older players held them back for athletic reasons. BUT I also want to add that I personally do not look down on a parent for holding their child out of K because they were very small physically compared to their peers. I'm pretty confident parents make decisions out of love and hope for the best possibilities for their children. It sucks for those of us that didn't make the decision and it turned out to be a disadvantage, but but I don't condemn those that held their children back.
When all is said and done, the character building that having a disadvantage in athletics brings is more valuable in life than a shortened athletic career. This still doesn't change the fact that the disadvantage is there and that it could have possibly shortened an athletic career. It just makes it unimportant for those that don't view baseball as the only road to success. But the disadvantage is still there which was the original question..."Is age(physical maturity) a factor in the recruiting process".
ClevelandDad: If you use phenoms such as Pedroia and Eckstein, you only water down your argument. They are both famous for being small and talented. Most *college* players don't have the talent that those two players do never mind high school players. We aren't talking about becoming a phenom, we are talking about trying to become a college player.
You are right you can't change your age, but you can (possibly) change the high school year in which you hit your growth spurt. Regarding choices if not chosen for a D1 school...see my comment to TPM about D2, D3 and NAIA schools. Sure players can choose to a)go out of state, b)go into debt just to play baseball, but many don't want this choice and haven't been given any other options so they choose to put other priorities first ahead of baseball. One more year of growth (notice I didn't say age) could have opened up options for the younger player that lives in a state without high end D3 academics or without the financial means to go to an expensive school.
BTW No one is saying it will *always* make the difference or that no player can overcome being a younger player. What I am saying is that having a late growth spurt can be a disadvantage during the recruitement process when baseball is not the number one college factor.
Also, I don't believe anyone is saying that *all* parents of older players held them back for athletic reasons. BUT I also want to add that I personally do not look down on a parent for holding their child out of K because they were very small physically compared to their peers. I'm pretty confident parents make decisions out of love and hope for the best possibilities for their children. It sucks for those of us that didn't make the decision and it turned out to be a disadvantage, but but I don't condemn those that held their children back.
When all is said and done, the character building that having a disadvantage in athletics brings is more valuable in life than a shortened athletic career. This still doesn't change the fact that the disadvantage is there and that it could have possibly shortened an athletic career. It just makes it unimportant for those that don't view baseball as the only road to success. But the disadvantage is still there which was the original question..."Is age(physical maturity) a factor in the recruiting process".
Rob K- My point was not really aimed at people starting thier kids late in school, it's about folks who after school has started, about middle school age, deciding to hold their kids back to get an advantage for their kid. It does happen. And I thought I saw it justified at a few points in this thread, for reasons such as not as physically mature as others. Which I think should not be allowed. I'm not buying for a second, that their not thinknig of the edge they'll have competing against kids in same grade, that are a year younger.
While I believe that some kids might be more immature than others at first grade and kindergarden age, and some hold them back for that reason,I'm not buying that if some parents want their kids to play sports competitively, their not thinking of this edge. I know 2 guys kin my area who admitted they held their son back for that reason.
While I believe that some kids might be more immature than others at first grade and kindergarden age, and some hold them back for that reason,I'm not buying that if some parents want their kids to play sports competitively, their not thinking of this edge. I know 2 guys kin my area who admitted they held their son back for that reason.
kevin: While I don't condemn a parent for legally holding a middle schooler back due to physical immaturity, I do think it fiscally irresponsible if it happens in the public school system. Taxpayers should not have to pay for an extra year of schooling so that a child can have that advantage. Either take your child out of public school or if you don't have the financial means for that, wait until they graduate and YOU pay for a year at a JUCO. Or decide it's not that important to you (as we did).
I don't have any evidence but I find it hard to believe that a school system would allow a child that is in good academic standing to be held back due to physical maturity. I have seen smaller kids held back but they also had some academic issues.
I don't have any evidence but I find it hard to believe that a school system would allow a child that is in good academic standing to be held back due to physical maturity. I have seen smaller kids held back but they also had some academic issues.
The Eckstein example is a good one. I'm pretty sure he was a walk-on at Florida. He overcame a whole lot to be a big-league shortstop, and I'd bet he never used his size as a reason he couldn't get the job done.
Athletic careers can be short for any number of reasons, but they primarily come down to talent and health. If you have enough ability and stay injury-free, no matter what size you are, your chances of continuing to play (collegiately and professionally) increase dramatically.
My son probably wishes he were faster or had a stronger arm, but he keeps working to improve the skill sets he has. You can't think about what you don't have, you have to enhance what you do have. Great baseball players comes in all shapes and sizes. That may be the best things about the game. I've seen 5-foot-7 kids throw over 90 mph, and I've seen 6-3, 220-pound singles hitters, too. You never know. The point is each player must take what he's got and do what he can with it. We keep going back to size limiting opportunity, but coaches and scouts look at far more than a player's size in making evaluations. That's the bottom line. Do some parents work the system? Sure, but I still believe that's a small minority.
As for limited recruiting opportunities, I say that's only the case if you choose to limit your own opportunities. You can't just dismiss D2, D3, etc. out of hand. If you do enough research, you can find a place that fits - whether it's public or private, strong program or struggling program - your son's ability level. I know because that's what we had to do for my son. He wasn't highly-recruited. More like lowly-recruited.
But he has made it work so far, which is what every player at every level has to do. Itsinthegame said it best: Once you get to college, all bets are off. Then it's up to the player to succeed or fail on his own merits. All the imagined advantages/disadvantages end when results count the most.
Athletic careers can be short for any number of reasons, but they primarily come down to talent and health. If you have enough ability and stay injury-free, no matter what size you are, your chances of continuing to play (collegiately and professionally) increase dramatically.
My son probably wishes he were faster or had a stronger arm, but he keeps working to improve the skill sets he has. You can't think about what you don't have, you have to enhance what you do have. Great baseball players comes in all shapes and sizes. That may be the best things about the game. I've seen 5-foot-7 kids throw over 90 mph, and I've seen 6-3, 220-pound singles hitters, too. You never know. The point is each player must take what he's got and do what he can with it. We keep going back to size limiting opportunity, but coaches and scouts look at far more than a player's size in making evaluations. That's the bottom line. Do some parents work the system? Sure, but I still believe that's a small minority.
As for limited recruiting opportunities, I say that's only the case if you choose to limit your own opportunities. You can't just dismiss D2, D3, etc. out of hand. If you do enough research, you can find a place that fits - whether it's public or private, strong program or struggling program - your son's ability level. I know because that's what we had to do for my son. He wasn't highly-recruited. More like lowly-recruited.
But he has made it work so far, which is what every player at every level has to do. Itsinthegame said it best: Once you get to college, all bets are off. Then it's up to the player to succeed or fail on his own merits. All the imagined advantages/disadvantages end when results count the most.
quote:This still doesn't change the fact that the disadvantage is there and that it could have possibly shortened an athletic career. It just makes it unimportant for those that don't view baseball as the only road to success.
slm, I am not sure I understand these thoughts.
Are you suggesting there are some who do view baseball, and especially playing baseball in college, as the only road to success?
If that is right, when you say baseball is the only road to success, what "success" is it that is jeopardized?
Walkon opportunities are very different today than they were in Eckstein's day due to the roster rule changes. The opportunities to walkon are now very limited. Still, this is likely what my son will try to do as he still has the talent and drive and he'll be another year closer to his physical maturity.
No one is advocating dismissing schools other than D1. You missed the very valid reasons I posted why some choose not to go that route after weighing all the factors and priorities involved.
There are far too many players that have benefited from going to a JUCO to take advantage of an extra year's growth for me to even consider the argument that all you need to do is try harder.
Every player does NOT have to do whatever it takes to play college ball. For some, the ability to go to college nearby family, the academic program, the financial cost, and other factors are more important and thus they will not play college ball. It's just too bad that for some, they might have had a chance to have it all.
infielddad: I meant that some players choose not to take extraordinary measures (like going JUCO) because they put priorities other than baseball first. Regardless of what your priorities are, if you make choices that ensure you put your individual priorities first, you will be doing the right thing. For some, that means putting the ability to play baseball as their number one criteria, for others it means finding a school with a specialized major and forgoing playing baseball at a school that doesn't have that academic program.
No one is advocating dismissing schools other than D1. You missed the very valid reasons I posted why some choose not to go that route after weighing all the factors and priorities involved.
There are far too many players that have benefited from going to a JUCO to take advantage of an extra year's growth for me to even consider the argument that all you need to do is try harder.
Every player does NOT have to do whatever it takes to play college ball. For some, the ability to go to college nearby family, the academic program, the financial cost, and other factors are more important and thus they will not play college ball. It's just too bad that for some, they might have had a chance to have it all.
infielddad: I meant that some players choose not to take extraordinary measures (like going JUCO) because they put priorities other than baseball first. Regardless of what your priorities are, if you make choices that ensure you put your individual priorities first, you will be doing the right thing. For some, that means putting the ability to play baseball as their number one criteria, for others it means finding a school with a specialized major and forgoing playing baseball at a school that doesn't have that academic program.
Interestingly in reading this I see more MOM's concerned about the age situation, I do not call it a problem, as well as a Baby Boomer concern---Different thinking process for them I guess---BUT again at my age the thinking process is different
I was 12 when I graduated from grammar school, parochial with NUNS, and I never went to kindergarten---my preschool learning came at home from my parents, God rest their souls
I was brought up and I taught my kids the same, being taught that you cope with the hand you are dealt---do not worry what the other guy is doing--he/she is not you--
If age is such a concern then why do kids play up--I played with 18 year olds in a league when I was 13---my sons were 15 playing in 19 under leagues--
It might be a better world today if we just worried about what we have to deal with and not what the neighbors are doing---also as I have said many times previous the kid know their limitations---they will handle it all on their own if you allow them to--the problem is that todays parents do not allow the kids to handle their own problems
Sandlotmom
How many people do you know in your life that have a chance to as you put it, "have it all" ?
I was 12 when I graduated from grammar school, parochial with NUNS, and I never went to kindergarten---my preschool learning came at home from my parents, God rest their souls
I was brought up and I taught my kids the same, being taught that you cope with the hand you are dealt---do not worry what the other guy is doing--he/she is not you--
If age is such a concern then why do kids play up--I played with 18 year olds in a league when I was 13---my sons were 15 playing in 19 under leagues--
It might be a better world today if we just worried about what we have to deal with and not what the neighbors are doing---also as I have said many times previous the kid know their limitations---they will handle it all on their own if you allow them to--the problem is that todays parents do not allow the kids to handle their own problems
Sandlotmom
How many people do you know in your life that have a chance to as you put it, "have it all" ?
TR: You obviously have no idea of my age or what schools I attended or you wouldn't make those comments!
I don't even know where to begin with all your accusations, prejudices and generalizations in your post. One thing is for sure...your way of looking at it all is much simpler!
Oh BTW, you missed this point in my posts...I'm not worried and actually think the hand my son has been dealt has made him a better person and player. That doesn't take the disadvantage away. It does make it unimportant to us in the whole scheme of college(another point you missed).
I don't even know where to begin with all your accusations, prejudices and generalizations in your post. One thing is for sure...your way of looking at it all is much simpler!
Oh BTW, you missed this point in my posts...I'm not worried and actually think the hand my son has been dealt has made him a better person and player. That doesn't take the disadvantage away. It does make it unimportant to us in the whole scheme of college(another point you missed).
I think it is funny how people will tell the ones at a disadvantage because of age to just deal with it, then turn around and get excited because someone held their kid back and got an "unfair" advantage.
Of course you just deal with it once it happened and you take on the challenge and hope it makes you tougher and that includes competing with the ones who were already older and got held back for whatever reason.
The funny thing is that the college coaches will "hold" the kids back when necessary by redshirting them if the parents don't do it earlier, but nobody complains about that unfair advantage. I believe over 20 kids in my son's program have a redshirt season under their belt, with more on the way. I don't think many or any of them are medical.
Now since the rules vary from state to state yet the players are competing nationally for scholarships and roster spots why shouldn't a parent try to put their child on an EQUAL footing with kids from other states?
I'm not talking about the kid with the May birthday being held back another year, and we've got one in our area who was held back specifically for sports. I'm talking about the kids with the August through December birthdays.
Of course you just deal with it once it happened and you take on the challenge and hope it makes you tougher and that includes competing with the ones who were already older and got held back for whatever reason.
The funny thing is that the college coaches will "hold" the kids back when necessary by redshirting them if the parents don't do it earlier, but nobody complains about that unfair advantage. I believe over 20 kids in my son's program have a redshirt season under their belt, with more on the way. I don't think many or any of them are medical.
Now since the rules vary from state to state yet the players are competing nationally for scholarships and roster spots why shouldn't a parent try to put their child on an EQUAL footing with kids from other states?
I'm not talking about the kid with the May birthday being held back another year, and we've got one in our area who was held back specifically for sports. I'm talking about the kids with the August through December birthdays.
quote:The funny thing is that the college coaches will "hold" the kids back when necessary by redshirting them if the parents don't do it earlier, but nobody complains about that unfair advantage. I believe over 20 kids in my son's program have a redshirt season under their belt, with more on the way. I don't think many or any of them are medical.
CADad,
With all due respect, I think that is apples and oranges. A Coach may redshirt a player because there might be someone ahead of him who is better, been there a couple of years. He is not holding him back to give him an advantage over anyone, just time to develop. Why would a parent complain. I think that's completely different than what the majority of this thread is about. Just my opinion of course.
quote:Every player does NOT have to do whatever it takes to play college ball. For some, the ability to go to college nearby family, the academic program, the financial cost, and other factors are more important and thus they will not play college ball. It's just too bad that for some, they might have had a chance to have it all.
sandlotmom - Is the issue in your mind that some kids are being denied the opportunity to have it "all?"
What does that mean?
Since you are from Va, lets use UVA as an example and for the purposes here assume that UVA is where a young man wanted to play his whole life. In other words, for him to have it "all," its UVA or bust. They are local, high profile academics, and coming off a college world series appearance. Are we lamenting that some kids are being denied the opportunity to play at UVA because of their age? What about the talent that is already on the roster. Suppose your son is a high-school all-american at first base yet UVA already has two of those in the program? What does age have to do with that? Let suppose your son is a left-handed pitcher and UVA has 6 left handers on staff? Suppose they have a need for right handers? We can go on and on with these types of scenarios. Maybe the coach at UVA is not that enamored with your son's tool set but the coach at Maryland is? Is your son being denied an opportunity due to his age?
I used the Eckstein example for a reason. At the time he attended, walk-ons were worth less to a coach than dirt. There were no penalties for over recruiting and some "scholarship" kids were getting scholarships of $500 a year or less - books if you will. Nowadays, a walk-on may be a pretty high value player yet one who does not merit 25%. He may have been a 20% player under the old system yet Eckstein did not even merit zero. He is still barely five foot six inches tall and never classified as a phenom player. Most would agree he outworked his shortcomings. There are other examples.
I guess I feel you are moving the goal posts in order to make a point. Please state exactly what the issue is because apparently juco, D2, D3, redshirting, and NAIA are not satisfactory solutions.
TR,
I happen to agree with you completely, seems we both agree that age shouldn't stop anyone from trying to be successful.
I do not agree that mom's have more of a problem with it, I certainly don't. I think just the opposite.
My opinion comes from being a former K teacher, yes absolutely I feel that some may benefit from repeating another year of prek. Again I repeat, not for athletic reasons. Actually, I find this to be no problem with girls, as they mature faster than boys physically. Who thinks that when your child is 5 don't start him until he is older so he can excel in sports, IMO that's crazy.
It may appear that college coaches hold the physically immature ones back, but in reality they over recruit and have only so many roster spots. Whether being held back or not, you still have to go out and compete for that scholarship, no matter what age you are, right?
Around here, many kids want to graduate HS early, most are pretty bored with the whole HS experience after 3.5 years, and compete for admissions to school over those that graduate in 4, or already taking college classes in communtiy colleges and make admissions. They want to move forward. I don't think being younger stopped them from their goal, sports or no sports.
Isn't this really about players not getting into the school of choice? How many actually get that opportunity?
I happen to agree with you completely, seems we both agree that age shouldn't stop anyone from trying to be successful.
I do not agree that mom's have more of a problem with it, I certainly don't. I think just the opposite.
My opinion comes from being a former K teacher, yes absolutely I feel that some may benefit from repeating another year of prek. Again I repeat, not for athletic reasons. Actually, I find this to be no problem with girls, as they mature faster than boys physically. Who thinks that when your child is 5 don't start him until he is older so he can excel in sports, IMO that's crazy.
It may appear that college coaches hold the physically immature ones back, but in reality they over recruit and have only so many roster spots. Whether being held back or not, you still have to go out and compete for that scholarship, no matter what age you are, right?
Around here, many kids want to graduate HS early, most are pretty bored with the whole HS experience after 3.5 years, and compete for admissions to school over those that graduate in 4, or already taking college classes in communtiy colleges and make admissions. They want to move forward. I don't think being younger stopped them from their goal, sports or no sports.
Isn't this really about players not getting into the school of choice? How many actually get that opportunity?
"Have it all" was shorthand for "Have the opportunity to play at a school that meets his top priorities AND the ability to play baseball". Sorry the abbreviation caused so much confusion.
No I am not lamenting that a player is being denied the opportunity to play at one specific very high profile academic, excellent athletic school. Thankfully my son is not that narrow-minded. He is in the process of establishing his goal posts and they are getting more and more firmly set. So far, they include the possibility of attending 12 schools here in state. I've already stated why the other alternatives(JUCO, etc.) don't work with his priorities. I never said redshirting was not an option for him, in fact this may be the way for him to "Have it All".
No I am not lamenting that a player is being denied the opportunity to play at one specific very high profile academic, excellent athletic school. Thankfully my son is not that narrow-minded. He is in the process of establishing his goal posts and they are getting more and more firmly set. So far, they include the possibility of attending 12 schools here in state. I've already stated why the other alternatives(JUCO, etc.) don't work with his priorities. I never said redshirting was not an option for him, in fact this may be the way for him to "Have it All".
quote:The funny thing is that the college coaches will "hold" the kids back when necessary by redshirting them if the parents don't do it earlier, but nobody complains about that unfair advantage. I believe over 20 kids in my son's program have a redshirt season under their belt, with more on the way. I don't think many or any of them are medical.
CADad, I'm with workinghard on this one for sure.
Coaches are not red-shirting to create an unfair advantage. They are doing it to allow the player to upgrade his skills to be able to play and compete. The coach, in essence, made the judgment that player needed better skills or he would never see the field. If he does not use that year to improve, as O'44 has been posting so well, in many programs, he won't have a scholarship next year, no matter what his age or date of birth.
But, alas, I am going to cry "uncle" with a capital "Uncle" on this thread. What is clear to me is that there are posters who fervently hold to the idea that age can deprive their sons of recruiting opportunities. What is also clear to me is the reasons offered in support of those fervently held beliefs vary from poster to poster and with each situation.
When the options available to play college baseball, including DI, DII, DIII, JC, NAIA get fully evaluated, my sense is those with the skills and ability and desire to play can find a very good home.
In a sense, this thread, to my reading, shows suggestions there is a type of "right" to play baseball in college that is being taken away for some.
College and college baseball is a very short experience. To my way of thinking, only the very few with the greatest talent would be making a calculated but somewhat realistic choice in putting baseball as the priority. Baseball, for reasons including ability, injury, grades, etc. will soon be done and the rest of life begins.
Recent stats from the NCAA show that CSU Fullerton, one of the acknowledged very best DI programs, graduates players at the lowest percentage rate within DI. Whatever got those players recruited and the chance to play isn't getting them a degree, once they stop playing.
Stripped to its core, whether those players had any age advantage or not in baseball, they will compete after baseball without a degree.
Whether that is an advantage or disadvantage is quite another topic, I expect.
Having the possibility of playing for 12 schools in state, wow, even mine didn't have that opportunity, yet CADad calls me arrogant?
This is a website for baseball, some of us try real hard in offering advice to those that need direction and especially as to what schools or programs will be a right fit, for their particular player in their particular circumstances. A parent coming here to complain (while son has that D1 opportunity) that because player was younger, or smaller missed opportunities.
Now that's arrogant, you know how many players and their parents wish their kids had that opportunity.
Sometimes we just have to look at a situation objectively and be reasonable and truthful with ourselves, did your child miss out because he was younger and others got it over him, or because he just wasn't talented enough for that program?
This is a website for baseball, some of us try real hard in offering advice to those that need direction and especially as to what schools or programs will be a right fit, for their particular player in their particular circumstances. A parent coming here to complain (while son has that D1 opportunity) that because player was younger, or smaller missed opportunities.
Now that's arrogant, you know how many players and their parents wish their kids had that opportunity.
Sometimes we just have to look at a situation objectively and be reasonable and truthful with ourselves, did your child miss out because he was younger and others got it over him, or because he just wasn't talented enough for that program?
workinghard and infielddad,
I agree with your points re: redshirting. The coaches are doing it to give their program an advantage or to compete on equal footing with other programs. As I stated earlier the younger players probably get redshirted disproportionally more often. I just wanted to get over the knee-jerk reaction to starting a kid in school at the same times as his peers from other states.
Infielddad brings up a good point that although many people are saying that education has to come first how many players actually graduate? How many parents insist that their kids finish college before taking that pro offer? (I realize that the players are adults at that point in time, but the parents most likely still have significant influence.) It has been proven that relatively few of those players complete their degrees, especially if they manage to stick in pro ball for a few years. BTW, Kudos to the ones who do complete their degrees as they are likely to have a lot of success in life.
Fullerton graduates the fewest players probably in part because they send such a large percentage on to pro ball.
I agree with your points re: redshirting. The coaches are doing it to give their program an advantage or to compete on equal footing with other programs. As I stated earlier the younger players probably get redshirted disproportionally more often. I just wanted to get over the knee-jerk reaction to starting a kid in school at the same times as his peers from other states.
Infielddad brings up a good point that although many people are saying that education has to come first how many players actually graduate? How many parents insist that their kids finish college before taking that pro offer? (I realize that the players are adults at that point in time, but the parents most likely still have significant influence.) It has been proven that relatively few of those players complete their degrees, especially if they manage to stick in pro ball for a few years. BTW, Kudos to the ones who do complete their degrees as they are likely to have a lot of success in life.
Fullerton graduates the fewest players probably in part because they send such a large percentage on to pro ball.
CADad,
Stanford graduates 100%, they play at the same level and send just as many to pro-ball.
Stanford graduates 100%, they play at the same level and send just as many to pro-ball.
TPM: LOL! You misunderstood my post. He does not have the possibility of *playing baseball* at 12 schools but with his academics he has the possibility of being accepted for admission at those schools. And even that is a still just a possibility...he still has to be accepted. My point was that he has narrowed his search and even still it includes 12 schools rather than just one high profile, excellent athletic school.
I am not complaining, I am answering a question asked by a poster. Based on the number of posts in this thread, it is obvious that it was a good question and there are several points of view for him to consider. I'm pretty confident that parents that come here don't wish to hear only one point of view(yours).
I have tried to be objective, reasonable and truthful in my reflection on the matter and I do believe I succeeded. Otherwise I would not feel as I do that in the end he is not at a disadvantage in life. Baseball maybe, life no. This is what I hope the original poster takes away from this enormous thread.
I am not complaining, I am answering a question asked by a poster. Based on the number of posts in this thread, it is obvious that it was a good question and there are several points of view for him to consider. I'm pretty confident that parents that come here don't wish to hear only one point of view(yours).
I have tried to be objective, reasonable and truthful in my reflection on the matter and I do believe I succeeded. Otherwise I would not feel as I do that in the end he is not at a disadvantage in life. Baseball maybe, life no. This is what I hope the original poster takes away from this enormous thread.
Infielddad,
Stanford is an exception and the kids who get into Stanford are exceptional outside of baseball as well. Even so, I doubt very much that Stanford sends as many kids to pro ball as Fullerton otherwise we wouldn't have only 26 players and coaches with degrees in MLB.
Stanford is an exception and the kids who get into Stanford are exceptional outside of baseball as well. Even so, I doubt very much that Stanford sends as many kids to pro ball as Fullerton otherwise we wouldn't have only 26 players and coaches with degrees in MLB.
Not sure of the statistics but most players from top
programs do return to graduate after being drafted, they want and need them to graduate.
If a school doesn't graduate most of it's drafted players, IMO, they haven't done a good job of what it is all about, getting your degree.
programs do return to graduate after being drafted, they want and need them to graduate.
If a school doesn't graduate most of it's drafted players, IMO, they haven't done a good job of what it is all about, getting your degree.
Here you go:
Top 10 Baseball Grad Rates: Major Programs
Stanford 100%
Boston College 100%
Northwestern 100%
Vanderbilt 100%
Notre Dame 100%
U. of San Diego 100%
Iowa 95%
Duke 94%
Rice 92%
Virginia 91%
Clemson 91%
Bottom 10 Baseball Grad Rates: Major Programs
Cal State Fullerton 27%
Arizona St. 30%
San Jose St. 33%
USC 36%
Texas 40%
Arizona 40%
North Carolina St. 40%
Auburn 42%
Fresno St. 44%
LSU 45%
The MLB reference was to players/coaches in MLB. It did not include those who were drafted and were in Milb. If it did, it was not accurate as I know 4 who played with our son in the Jays organization all of whom had their college degree...with the player from Stanford having a double major.
Fullerton has a lot of kids drafted. So does Stanford, Rice, Vanderbilt, Clemson and USD, among others. Cal is also up there in terms of draftees and graduation rate also.
It isn't the draft that creates such big discrepancies. A small part, maybe but nothing more.
Top 10 Baseball Grad Rates: Major Programs
Stanford 100%
Boston College 100%
Northwestern 100%
Vanderbilt 100%
Notre Dame 100%
U. of San Diego 100%
Iowa 95%
Duke 94%
Rice 92%
Virginia 91%
Clemson 91%
Bottom 10 Baseball Grad Rates: Major Programs
Cal State Fullerton 27%
Arizona St. 30%
San Jose St. 33%
USC 36%
Texas 40%
Arizona 40%
North Carolina St. 40%
Auburn 42%
Fresno St. 44%
LSU 45%
The MLB reference was to players/coaches in MLB. It did not include those who were drafted and were in Milb. If it did, it was not accurate as I know 4 who played with our son in the Jays organization all of whom had their college degree...with the player from Stanford having a double major.
Fullerton has a lot of kids drafted. So does Stanford, Rice, Vanderbilt, Clemson and USD, among others. Cal is also up there in terms of draftees and graduation rate also.
It isn't the draft that creates such big discrepancies. A small part, maybe but nothing more.
Infielddad,
So the programs where you go to get an education first and then play baseball have better graduation rates. The programs where you go to play baseball and perhaps get an education have poor graduation rates.
Fullerton had more players drafted than Stanford in 2009 and does pretty much every year.
Overall, though I'd say that list shows that you're right. It is the priorities of the school that make the difference and not the draft. I'll stick with my assertion that the ones who are drafted and sign don't complete their degrees more often than not as the graduates from the programs who don't graduate 100% are most likely skewed toward those who weren't drafted.
So the programs where you go to get an education first and then play baseball have better graduation rates. The programs where you go to play baseball and perhaps get an education have poor graduation rates.
Fullerton had more players drafted than Stanford in 2009 and does pretty much every year.
Overall, though I'd say that list shows that you're right. It is the priorities of the school that make the difference and not the draft. I'll stick with my assertion that the ones who are drafted and sign don't complete their degrees more often than not as the graduates from the programs who don't graduate 100% are most likely skewed toward those who weren't drafted.
The number of draftees is pretty easy to check.
In 2009, CSU had 7, Stanford had 5.
In 2008, CSU had 6, with the highest in the 8th round.
Stanford had 7, with 4 in the first 4 rounds.
I expect previous years are similar and there just isn't a significant gap. Where there is a gap is HS players from CSU sign far more frequently than Stanford signees.
Since they played each other on a very competitive basis every year until recently, they are putting similar talent on the field, with quite different results in graduation rates.
In 2009, CSU had 7, Stanford had 5.
In 2008, CSU had 6, with the highest in the 8th round.
Stanford had 7, with 4 in the first 4 rounds.
I expect previous years are similar and there just isn't a significant gap. Where there is a gap is HS players from CSU sign far more frequently than Stanford signees.
Since they played each other on a very competitive basis every year until recently, they are putting similar talent on the field, with quite different results in graduation rates.
So go back 1 more year to 2007 and 1 more to 2006.
quote:Originally posted by CADad:
So go back 1 more year to 2007.
Why, so I can see CSU had more drafted?
And then we can do this every year to see they are very close in terms of draftees? So we can see the difference in the number of draftees has little to do with one school graduating 100% and another graduating 27%?
And finally so we can see it has nothing to do with this topic?
Classic HSBBW thread and posts.
If the boy had an Oct-Dec birthday, He would have started kindergarten later than earlier. Of course the older kids with just average skills have an advantage, both on the field and in the classroom. We have all seen younger and older kids competing against each other from the same graduating class. In some instances the difference of age is greater than a year, without being held back. It's a tired argument by those who would cry foul over the age differences of players in the same graduating class (with the exception of the players who were held back) the younger players of the class had the option of starting later and simply missed the boat, for whatever reason. If I were King. The families who redshirt/held back their son as a 6th or 8th grader, would have to sit out a year playing HS sports. For the obvious reasons. If your looking to gain an edge on the field thats just wrong. If your doing so because he's not cutting it in the claasroom (especially as an 8th grader) he'll need the time to get up to speed.
If the boy had an Oct-Dec birthday, He would have started kindergarten later than earlier. Of course the older kids with just average skills have an advantage, both on the field and in the classroom. We have all seen younger and older kids competing against each other from the same graduating class. In some instances the difference of age is greater than a year, without being held back. It's a tired argument by those who would cry foul over the age differences of players in the same graduating class (with the exception of the players who were held back) the younger players of the class had the option of starting later and simply missed the boat, for whatever reason. If I were King. The families who redshirt/held back their son as a 6th or 8th grader, would have to sit out a year playing HS sports. For the obvious reasons. If your looking to gain an edge on the field thats just wrong. If your doing so because he's not cutting it in the claasroom (especially as an 8th grader) he'll need the time to get up to speed.
Yep. Fullerton had a lot more drafted than Stanford. 10 in 2007 and 9 in 2006. You were writing that they were even in terms of draftees. They aren't. Doesn't have much to do with the topic but it does have something to do with getting the facts straight.
quote:Originally posted by dswann:...the younger players of the class had the option of starting later and simply missed the boat, for whatever reason.
I know what you're saying, but I see them as the ones who got on the boat, while others stayed on shore.
dswann,
So you'd make the kid who stays back in 6th or 8th grade and is now the same age as the kids in his class sit out a year?
If I were king kids would get 4 years to play HS sports from 15 to 18 regardless of grade and then would start their college 5 to play 4 at 19 even if they haven't graduated from HS. The age groupings would be centered around the season for that sport to minimize advantages/disadvantages. The ones who are talented enough would have the option to start college and their 5 to play 4 earlier if they wanted to but would have the option of waiting until their 19yo season. That approach would certainly have it's own problems but at least it would divorce the sports from the education to some degree such that parents wouldn't have the incentive to choose between the two. Players would be draft eligible upon HS graduation and on completing their 18yo season. It'll never happen of course.
So you'd make the kid who stays back in 6th or 8th grade and is now the same age as the kids in his class sit out a year?
If I were king kids would get 4 years to play HS sports from 15 to 18 regardless of grade and then would start their college 5 to play 4 at 19 even if they haven't graduated from HS. The age groupings would be centered around the season for that sport to minimize advantages/disadvantages. The ones who are talented enough would have the option to start college and their 5 to play 4 earlier if they wanted to but would have the option of waiting until their 19yo season. That approach would certainly have it's own problems but at least it would divorce the sports from the education to some degree such that parents wouldn't have the incentive to choose between the two. Players would be draft eligible upon HS graduation and on completing their 18yo season. It'll never happen of course.
quote:They aren't. Doesn't have much to do with the topic but it does have something to do with getting the facts straight.
Must have felt good to post that, huh?
Actually, I didn't say they were "even."
What I posted is there was not a "significant gap" and that they were close enough so that it did not account for one being at 27% and one being at 100%.
As I said, this has nothing to do with the topic.
But if you felt good getting in the "attack mode" on getting "facts straight," at least quote me accurately, okay?
So since there wasn't a significant gap what was the gap those two years? I didn't check Stanford.
Sorry if you thought I was in attack mode. That wasn't my intention. I posted something then you posted something that implied I was wrong by looking at just two years. I gave you the chance to check back further. You didn't.
Sorry if you thought I was in attack mode. That wasn't my intention. I posted something then you posted something that implied I was wrong by looking at just two years. I gave you the chance to check back further. You didn't.
quote:Originally posted by CADad:
If I were king kids would get 4 years to play HS sports from 15 to 18 regardless of grade
Sounds fair, and it shouldn't bother anyone, because no one held their kids back/started them later for sports, anyway. Right, folks?
Question, do your middle schools have baseball programs?
Only a very few of the private schools do in our area.
Infielddad,
I checked back through 2001 on baseball reference. Fullerton had slightly more draft picks but very definitely not significantly more draft picks. You were right.
I checked back through 2001 on baseball reference. Fullerton had slightly more draft picks but very definitely not significantly more draft picks. You were right.