As far as HS sports, there's a definite advantage for those that start later/repeat.
That advantage disappears, later in life, when they're the first ones to turn thirty, forty... fifty!
Age is just one of the measures. If the kid can play and produce at a level above his age let him. My son is a late August baby. Hey is a 15 yr old soph, one of the youngest in his athletic class. Played JV as a Frosh, 16u summer and 18u this past fall. Sure his fall coach asked if he wanted to go to his prep school to get the "extra year" I told him we would just let the chips fall where they may. If, when he is a senior and he does not develop far enough and colleges show concern for his age that is when we will address it. As far as holding your kid back a year when young or home schooling to gain an athletic advantage that seems a little too much. It all evens out over the four years they spend in HS. Ability is ability and age is secondary, play at the level you can compete at and at the same time be challenged.
My son played varsity as a freshman and got his 1st MVP award that year. He also took an extra year as a SR to play basketball and didn't play BB that year. His BKB team was great and they played tournaments in Vegas and Ariz. It was his coaches last year as he was retiring. He also played elite BB that year. He wasn't in a hurry to go to college and things were lining up well.
He also played 18U district allstar as a 15 yo turning 16. Most of his team went on to play college and some Pro ball.
1 year for most means nothing. If you can play you will do well regardless of the age difference..
He also played 18U district allstar as a 15 yo turning 16. Most of his team went on to play college and some Pro ball.
1 year for most means nothing. If you can play you will do well regardless of the age difference..
TD
Truly appreciate your attitude--more parents should think that way
Truly appreciate your attitude--more parents should think that way
quote:It all evens out over the four years they spend in HS
NO, it doesn't always even out "in time", which for baseball is either the summer before their H.S senior year (College early signings) or the senior season before the MLB draft. Many, miss that window and "appear from nowhere" after maturing, from venues in DII, DIII or JUCO. The maturation process, and when it occurs, is what makes it so difficult to "forecast" what the potential of an athlete is.
"The Outlier" book, as cited many times here, showed revealing evidence supporting the premise of when you are born, in relation to youth cut-off dates, makes a huge difference in how you are viewed by coaches, the training/coaching advantages you may receive ........ because of maturation differences that greatly affect talent evaluation! Thus the reason some parents and even some school programs, promote "holding them back."
What happened to the days when the kids just "played" without worrying about pushing them
I had my son take a redshirt year in kindergarden, which allowed him to dominate in kickball at recess when he got to first grade. 
Actually, I think you should let your kid's birthday be his birthday. Trying to manipulate an extra year of high school so your son can possibly be a better athlete/better college prospect always has struck me as over-the-top parenting. Kids tend to mature at different points in their teenage years anyway so you never know how it's going to turn out. I guess it all depends on what's most important to you.
Actually, I think you should let your kid's birthday be his birthday. Trying to manipulate an extra year of high school so your son can possibly be a better athlete/better college prospect always has struck me as over-the-top parenting. Kids tend to mature at different points in their teenage years anyway so you never know how it's going to turn out. I guess it all depends on what's most important to you.
TR,
You mean the days when there was no College Select?
You mean the days when there was no College Select?
CADAD
There was no College Select when all of my boys went to college--they just played ball
Gotta love your attitude--for whatever that is worth--I am just happy that I am on the RIGHT COAST and comfortabale with myself
There was no College Select when all of my boys went to college--they just played ball
Gotta love your attitude--for whatever that is worth--I am just happy that I am on the RIGHT COAST and comfortabale with myself
TR,
Love your sense of humor. I'm glad I'm on the warm coast. I spent too much time where you are. People get grumpy during the winter.
There's snow on the mountains and at lunch I'll walk to the beach. I can deal with that.
Love your sense of humor. I'm glad I'm on the warm coast. I spent too much time where you are. People get grumpy during the winter.
There's snow on the mountains and at lunch I'll walk to the beach. I can deal with that.
CADAD
Where you are location wise is your problem not mine---Ever walk on the beach in the winter in the Northest--probably not--but it is magnificent-
as long as I am happy with myself I am fine--but are you happy with yourself--MANY ON THE WRONG COAST AREN'T
Where you are location wise is your problem not mine---Ever walk on the beach in the winter in the Northest--probably not--but it is magnificent-
as long as I am happy with myself I am fine--but are you happy with yourself--MANY ON THE WRONG COAST AREN'T
TR,
Wrong again. I have walked on the beach in the Northeast many times winter, summer and fall.
Yes, I'm happy with myself. Many people on either coast aren't happy with themselves and many are. Recent studies have shown that people tend to be happier in the sunshine states but happiness is what you make of it. People make their own happiness. It is just a little easier in warm weather.
Wrong again. I have walked on the beach in the Northeast many times winter, summer and fall.
Yes, I'm happy with myself. Many people on either coast aren't happy with themselves and many are. Recent studies have shown that people tend to be happier in the sunshine states but happiness is what you make of it. People make their own happiness. It is just a little easier in warm weather.
CADAD
whatever---
whatever---
quote:Originally posted by TRhit:
CADAD
---Ever walk on the beach in the winter in the Northest--probably not--but it is magnificent-
I have. It is nice, but if you go to NJ, bring a ladder. This is right after the November nor'easter.
This conversation sparked my curiosity (the one about graduation age, not the one about which coast to live on), so I thought about MLB players who were late developers. One came to mind immediately: Evan Longoria.
Longoria's story is well known. He had no D1 offers out of HS, went to community college for a year, added weight and strength, then went on to Long Beach State and MLB stardom. How old was Longoria when he finished HS? Seventeen. He has an October birthday.
Of course the key ingredient to baseball success is talent. No one would argue that. But for players with talent who have not developed the strength that is still in their future, Longoria's story is an inspiration.
Longoria's story is well known. He had no D1 offers out of HS, went to community college for a year, added weight and strength, then went on to Long Beach State and MLB stardom. How old was Longoria when he finished HS? Seventeen. He has an October birthday.
Of course the key ingredient to baseball success is talent. No one would argue that. But for players with talent who have not developed the strength that is still in their future, Longoria's story is an inspiration.
On the other hand, Clayton Richard's dad held him back so that he was a star player in high school and football. He eventually was a quarterback and pitcher at the University of Michigan. Richard graduated from high school at the tender age of 19 years 8+ months.
There are lots of guys who developed later in the game and went on to success. The point is they stayed in the race and did what they had to do. Jeff Francis is another who couldn't buy a scholarship with his 80 mph fast ball.
quote:Clayton Richard's dad held him back so that he was a star player
Could it be that he just wanted to play 1 more year with his team and friends? Wasn't he already a star ?
Jimmy Clausen. It helps.
quote:Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:quote:Clayton Richard's dad held him back so that he was a star player
Could it be that he just wanted to play 1 more year with his team and friends? Wasn't he already a star ?
He started grade school late. He was already a star because he had the initial advantage of being older than everyone. He did not adjust because he liked his teammates. Besides, high school rules do not allow you to play for five years.
I agree with those who suggest that sometimes an older age is an advantage and sometimes a younger age is an advantage because I have seen both instances turn out to be advantages.
Think back to when your kids were about 12 years old. At that age, there were some dominant kids just because they were bigger and stronger than other kids. Sometimes they were dominant because they matured faster and/or because they were older. Fast-forward a few years and I'll bet many of you remember the late bloomers completely passing some of these kids by.
Each kid has to take his own unique circumstances and turn it into their own unique advantage imho. The worst thing a kid or parent can do imho is look for excuses for themselves and/or try to explain someone elses success on the narrow view that only their age expalains why they are good. It can indeed be an advantage (either way) but there are other factors equally if not more important imho.
Think back to when your kids were about 12 years old. At that age, there were some dominant kids just because they were bigger and stronger than other kids. Sometimes they were dominant because they matured faster and/or because they were older. Fast-forward a few years and I'll bet many of you remember the late bloomers completely passing some of these kids by.
Each kid has to take his own unique circumstances and turn it into their own unique advantage imho. The worst thing a kid or parent can do imho is look for excuses for themselves and/or try to explain someone elses success on the narrow view that only their age expalains why they are good. It can indeed be an advantage (either way) but there are other factors equally if not more important imho.
CD,
Good post. One of the things a parent can do if they are realistic and well informed is hold a kid back if they really are a late bloomer and it is likely to make a difference.
It would be rare but I could see where holding a kid back a year could be the difference between a scholarship to a good D1 school and going to a JC to develop and possibly not getting as good of an education overall. Going to a JC isn't necessarily the lesser of these two choices but my guess is that most parents of kids in HS and the players themselves are targeting that good D1.
Eventually we get back to the reality that college coaches are looking for help in the near future and the player who has gotten more playing time in HS and is physically and perhaps mentally more mature because of being older is more likely to get a scholarship even if another kid of equal talent who is a year ahead of him in school has the same long term potential.
I've seen the case where kids did end up passing the early bloomer by. The early bloomer got the scholarship.
Good post. One of the things a parent can do if they are realistic and well informed is hold a kid back if they really are a late bloomer and it is likely to make a difference.
It would be rare but I could see where holding a kid back a year could be the difference between a scholarship to a good D1 school and going to a JC to develop and possibly not getting as good of an education overall. Going to a JC isn't necessarily the lesser of these two choices but my guess is that most parents of kids in HS and the players themselves are targeting that good D1.
Eventually we get back to the reality that college coaches are looking for help in the near future and the player who has gotten more playing time in HS and is physically and perhaps mentally more mature because of being older is more likely to get a scholarship even if another kid of equal talent who is a year ahead of him in school has the same long term potential.
I've seen the case where kids did end up passing the early bloomer by. The early bloomer got the scholarship.
quote:Originally posted by ClevelandDad:
I agree with those who suggest that sometimes an older age is an advantage and sometimes a younger age is an advantage because I have seen both instances turn out to be advantages.
Think back to when your kids were about 12 years old. At that age, there were some dominant kids just because they were bigger and stronger than other kids. Sometimes they were dominant because they matured faster and/or because they were older. Fast-forward a few years and I'll bet many of you remember the late bloomers completely passing some of these kids by.
Each kid has to take his own unique circumstances and turn it into their own unique advantage imho. The worst thing a kid or parent can do imho is look for excuses for themselves and/or try to explain someone elses success on the narrow view that only their age expalains why they are good. It can indeed be an advantage (either way) but there are other factors equally if not more important imho.
CD, I always value your comments and your advice is exactly the same advice I gave to my son. He was 5 feet five inches when he came to his high school as a freshmen pitcher. He was probably the freshman team's number 3 pitcher behind physically more mature players. Because of the advice that you mentioned regarding him outworking the other kids, my son was the first and only player to come out his high school with a Division 1 scholarship.
However in football, the coach gave no time to a 5 foot five inch quarterback who was still a boy when had a six foot two inch man at the same position. After two years of very little development from his coaching staff, my son stopped playing football. The quarterback that had the job handed to him his freshmen year stopped playing football after his junior year. The varsity football coach had a D1 pitcher in his school but he did not develop him as a qb because he was still a little kid when he entered high school.
quote:Originally posted by Brickhouse:
Because of him outworking the other kids, my son was the first and only player to come out his high school with a Division 1 scholarship.
I love posts like that - good stuff Brickhouse
BTW - I have not really disagreed with anyone's take in this thread (older better/worse or younger better/worse). My guess is we all have experiences one way or the other and it is entirely possible that some of our experiences could be all/mostly one way and not the other. Now I may even be confusing myself on the subject
While I can acknowledge the idea that many feel age, and especially size, makes a difference in DI recruiting, I just continue to feel, as CD says, there are many views and experiences.
As Fungo once questioned what are DIII academics, I continue to question what is the DI experience?
I got the scholarship part but continue to wonder if that should be a/the goal or reason to try and protect, shield or enhance your son from what ultimately comes down to one question: does your son have the talent and drive to succeed in college baseball?
To somewhat distinguish from the experience Brickhouse described, our son was 4'11" and 96lbs when he stepped on the football field for the first day of high school practice. He was a bit bigger when baseball began. Pictures of him calling plays in the choir huddle were hysterical.
He never did get a DI scholarship. But he was a DIII All-American, a 2 time NECBL All-Star, the second leading hitter in the NECBL and played quite well in Milb after getting drafted.
By his senior year in college he was just under 6'1" and about 180lbs.
In football, the varsity coach wasn't his biggest fan, but he never gave up.
By his senior year, he was a 5'10" 148lb. QB in a double wing run oriented offense, who passed, and sort of blocked, his team into the section championships, received his share of local awards and showed up at his DIII university to find the football coach telling him they expected him for Fall practice 2 weeks ago.
There is a time when parents cannot manipulate, alter, adjust or protect their sons in athletics or elsewhere.
There is a time when all the past efforts to alter, adjust, manipulate or protect just don't matter in athletics.
For all of these young men, eventually, there is a time they make it on their own, or they don't.
In baseball, at some point beyond high school, talent and drive will combine to provide the opportunity to compete and prove they belong with the best, even if they don't get a scholarship or have the DI opportunity.
As Fungo once questioned what are DIII academics, I continue to question what is the DI experience?
I got the scholarship part but continue to wonder if that should be a/the goal or reason to try and protect, shield or enhance your son from what ultimately comes down to one question: does your son have the talent and drive to succeed in college baseball?
To somewhat distinguish from the experience Brickhouse described, our son was 4'11" and 96lbs when he stepped on the football field for the first day of high school practice. He was a bit bigger when baseball began. Pictures of him calling plays in the choir huddle were hysterical.
He never did get a DI scholarship. But he was a DIII All-American, a 2 time NECBL All-Star, the second leading hitter in the NECBL and played quite well in Milb after getting drafted.
By his senior year in college he was just under 6'1" and about 180lbs.
In football, the varsity coach wasn't his biggest fan, but he never gave up.
By his senior year, he was a 5'10" 148lb. QB in a double wing run oriented offense, who passed, and sort of blocked, his team into the section championships, received his share of local awards and showed up at his DIII university to find the football coach telling him they expected him for Fall practice 2 weeks ago.
There is a time when parents cannot manipulate, alter, adjust or protect their sons in athletics or elsewhere.
There is a time when all the past efforts to alter, adjust, manipulate or protect just don't matter in athletics.
For all of these young men, eventually, there is a time they make it on their own, or they don't.
In baseball, at some point beyond high school, talent and drive will combine to provide the opportunity to compete and prove they belong with the best, even if they don't get a scholarship or have the DI opportunity.
Those were outstanding posts.
Heres another way to look at it. My player is also going to graduate at 17. He has always played up--2 years, so when he goes to college, it will just be more of the same. HOWEVER, he had to learn to pitch to get guys out, when he would have just blown his own age group away. Now that he is going into his senior year, and was up to 92 in the fall, he will have the advantage this year and going forward of knowing how to pitch (a little, still a lot to learn) AND will still be gaining velocity, so he can finesse it a bit, OR just throw it by the batter. To add to what some other posters said, it was fun his freshman year in HS, because his teammates would tell the other teams (who had some kids that "manipulated" the system to graduate at 19) that they just got beat by a 14 year old! Lets face it, if that is the road you need to take, you are just not that good, plain and simple. For and answer to your question, however, it may be an advantage in college recruiting for some players, but it seemes like a crutch in life. And klets face it, when you get to school, and are topped out, you are going to be riding the bench while a player who was still developing passes you by, due to the increased maturity and the hard work it took to compete with the older kids.
So I was telling my son about this thread, and here is a point that he brought up. He has always pitched better against the older kids. According to him, this is because he knows that if he makes a mistake against them, he might get his head taken clean off, so his concentration level is higher. Plus he feels that he has something to prove. By his own admission, sometimes he mails it in a bit against kids his own age, or doesnt give them enough credit for being good players in their own right.
quote:Lets face it, if that is the road you need to take, you are just not that good, plain and simple.
And there's the issue really. Arrogance.
So High Cheese would you say that a player who doesn't make varsity as a 16yo junior just isn't that good, plain and simple?
Brian, I have a friend in the Dominion Republic that can help your situation.
.
While I am the biggest fan that there is of rising to situation, of learning from struggle, of pitting one’s self against the best, of shooting high, and of the pure magic of the elites...I also think we have to be very careful of this thread becoming too idealistic...or as so often happens on the HSBBW, of taking the myopic Blue Chip viewpoint.
While I am not a fan of holding kids back to gain an extra year...Flatly stating that age is no significant difference, that any "real athlete" is age defying applies to a chosen few...and not only sends the wrong message that either you were born with “it” or you were not...but it misses both the point and the greater value of youth sports.
The bad news is that in the last 15 years youth sports have become more ruthless, more myopic, more competitive, more product driven, more numbers driven, and more geared to individual stardom and pro career. What once was go play, learn a few skills and have some fun has morphed into a youth career, and from that into individual “return on investment”...and that return is now measured in national rankings, scholarship %’s, projected draft round, velocity, statistics...and in some cases million dollar paydays.
Problem is that it has been argued by people much smarter than me that both human and athletic development is structured on a bell curve. Assuming that is the case, For every player who is "age defying" at 16 or 17 there are 99 for who that extra year of work, of maturity, of growth, makes a tremendous difference. 99 who need time space and smart management to develop as athletes, as academics and as human beings. 99 who need time and space to play at age to build confidence and emotional maturity, and could really use that extra year. 99 for whom a year means a turn in hormones, or suddenly growing into those inches, or the "light bulb going on", or losing/gaining those extra 10 lbs, or of hard work and effort sharpening talent. For every player who is age defying and is a top 10 round pick out of HS, there are 99 who can and would be better served to use the time to develop....and in many cases it works as evidenced in the current trend to the increased drafting of college players
Beyond that and more basic is why our kids should be in youth sports to begin with. The good news is that arguably youth sports have never been so well organized, so available, or our national consciousness so aware of the need to use youth sports as a way to protect our youth, teach them, and develop them as better human beings. Frankly the good news is that there is a great deal more to youth sports than million dollar paydays, high draft picks, or DI scholarships.
20 years from now when the clippings are yellowed, and the dream is faded, and no one but the parents remember that starring role ...the lessons learned from youth sports are the real legacy that we will have given our children. What are those lessons? Irregardless of the fact that we now live in a culture were we are told that we should all be “celebrities”. I would argue that in the end WE are the 99%. I would argue that those skills, ones that we have given our kids thrugh youth sports: the value of staying straight, fitness, work ethic, team play, faith, friendship, a lack of entitlement, and belief in what we CAN become not just the “it” that we were born with...and that a year can make a real difference to the vast majority of us...are the real value of youth sports.
44
.
While I am the biggest fan that there is of rising to situation, of learning from struggle, of pitting one’s self against the best, of shooting high, and of the pure magic of the elites...I also think we have to be very careful of this thread becoming too idealistic...or as so often happens on the HSBBW, of taking the myopic Blue Chip viewpoint.
While I am not a fan of holding kids back to gain an extra year...Flatly stating that age is no significant difference, that any "real athlete" is age defying applies to a chosen few...and not only sends the wrong message that either you were born with “it” or you were not...but it misses both the point and the greater value of youth sports.
The bad news is that in the last 15 years youth sports have become more ruthless, more myopic, more competitive, more product driven, more numbers driven, and more geared to individual stardom and pro career. What once was go play, learn a few skills and have some fun has morphed into a youth career, and from that into individual “return on investment”...and that return is now measured in national rankings, scholarship %’s, projected draft round, velocity, statistics...and in some cases million dollar paydays.
Problem is that it has been argued by people much smarter than me that both human and athletic development is structured on a bell curve. Assuming that is the case, For every player who is "age defying" at 16 or 17 there are 99 for who that extra year of work, of maturity, of growth, makes a tremendous difference. 99 who need time space and smart management to develop as athletes, as academics and as human beings. 99 who need time and space to play at age to build confidence and emotional maturity, and could really use that extra year. 99 for whom a year means a turn in hormones, or suddenly growing into those inches, or the "light bulb going on", or losing/gaining those extra 10 lbs, or of hard work and effort sharpening talent. For every player who is age defying and is a top 10 round pick out of HS, there are 99 who can and would be better served to use the time to develop....and in many cases it works as evidenced in the current trend to the increased drafting of college players
Beyond that and more basic is why our kids should be in youth sports to begin with. The good news is that arguably youth sports have never been so well organized, so available, or our national consciousness so aware of the need to use youth sports as a way to protect our youth, teach them, and develop them as better human beings. Frankly the good news is that there is a great deal more to youth sports than million dollar paydays, high draft picks, or DI scholarships.
20 years from now when the clippings are yellowed, and the dream is faded, and no one but the parents remember that starring role ...the lessons learned from youth sports are the real legacy that we will have given our children. What are those lessons? Irregardless of the fact that we now live in a culture were we are told that we should all be “celebrities”. I would argue that in the end WE are the 99%. I would argue that those skills, ones that we have given our kids thrugh youth sports: the value of staying straight, fitness, work ethic, team play, faith, friendship, a lack of entitlement, and belief in what we CAN become not just the “it” that we were born with...and that a year can make a real difference to the vast majority of us...are the real value of youth sports.
44.
wow!!! 
Another ob44 classic 
The guy has Pultizer Prize winnning ability imho...
The guy has Pultizer Prize winnning ability imho...
CA--not at all. A 18 yo JR is the one who isnt that good if he doesnt make the varsity. If a 16 yo makes varsity, legion, ect, he is probable quite a good player. I am sure that while mine played varsity as a young freshman, a big factor in that is our location, and am SURE that in many areas of the country, that would not have happened. Lets face it, a standout player up here is just another guy in your neck of the woods. That is the point I think you missed. IF you feel the need to keep a kid back to improve his chances of making a varsity team,perhaps if the youngster just worked harder, he could compete with kids his OWN age. And belive me, I am not arrogant at all about the little bit of sucess my son has had. Up until recently, I thought he would be LUCKY to be playing at all in college, knowing the level of talent is out there. And just to be clear, I am talking about athletics ONLY. If a kid is having issues academically, and is trying hard, keeping him back may be the best option. I just dont think that it is ever the best option to put the progress of your life on hold for a chance to be a big shot in athletics.
My son is a 14 yr old freshmen with a Sept birthday. He is also slow to mature physically. He knows all of this and I believe it has given him some xtra motivation to work harder. Since he is in HS now, he can work out after school at the HS gym, which he would not be able to do if still in MS. COme showcase time Iknow that he will physically be behind most of the others in his grade. In the end I belive he will be a better player for it, but will he still be in the game by then is the question.
BK35,
My son was in the same situation as yours...he did have to work harder..not because he was less talented but because it is harder to be noticed initially if you are not a "big stud" player. My son always shines in game situations..but had to work hard to prove himself. As a sophomore, he was pulled up from JV after 1 game to replace a senior varsity catcher for defensive purposes (my son didn't get to bat much, but it was ok). In the summer after his soph year, he made the senior legion team and was one of 4 catchers. He didn't get much playing time initially, but when he did, he outplayed the other catchers and eventually became the starter before the season was over. He is now going into his senior season and has started every game, both varsity and legion, and played EVERY inning since then.He recently signed to play D-I college baseball. Tell your son to work hard and hang in there. Age and size doesn't always matter!
My son was in the same situation as yours...he did have to work harder..not because he was less talented but because it is harder to be noticed initially if you are not a "big stud" player. My son always shines in game situations..but had to work hard to prove himself. As a sophomore, he was pulled up from JV after 1 game to replace a senior varsity catcher for defensive purposes (my son didn't get to bat much, but it was ok). In the summer after his soph year, he made the senior legion team and was one of 4 catchers. He didn't get much playing time initially, but when he did, he outplayed the other catchers and eventually became the starter before the season was over. He is now going into his senior season and has started every game, both varsity and legion, and played EVERY inning since then.He recently signed to play D-I college baseball. Tell your son to work hard and hang in there. Age and size doesn't always matter!
Excellent post O'44. Once again you've nailed it. Your posts should be required reading for all parents helping their sons get recruited.
Size is a very interesting issue and the longer you follow kids (baseball players in my view) you start to see some leveling out where size may not matter. When my son was younger (10-14)there were a lot of big studs that were already 6' tall. They literally stood out head and shoulders above the smaller kids. Could hit farther, run faster, etc.
Fast forward to high school and now college. The 6' studs (or 5"10 or so) have been passed up heightwise by many kids. I've seen several 12 yr old "studs" that started off playing D1 college baseball fall off the charts now. Several have moved to D2 after not having scholarships renewed. Another quit D1 ball after 3 years for various reasons. Some had abysmal work ethics or grade issues.
Regardless of what size you are you have to have a huge amount of ENDLESS DETERMINATION to continually work harder on the field, weight room, and classroom. Some players that had great "careers" as 10-16 yrs old just don't want to continue to put in the time necessary to advance at each new level. And that's ok, just don't let your size be the determining factor for success or failure.
Size is a very interesting issue and the longer you follow kids (baseball players in my view) you start to see some leveling out where size may not matter. When my son was younger (10-14)there were a lot of big studs that were already 6' tall. They literally stood out head and shoulders above the smaller kids. Could hit farther, run faster, etc.
Fast forward to high school and now college. The 6' studs (or 5"10 or so) have been passed up heightwise by many kids. I've seen several 12 yr old "studs" that started off playing D1 college baseball fall off the charts now. Several have moved to D2 after not having scholarships renewed. Another quit D1 ball after 3 years for various reasons. Some had abysmal work ethics or grade issues.
Regardless of what size you are you have to have a huge amount of ENDLESS DETERMINATION to continually work harder on the field, weight room, and classroom. Some players that had great "careers" as 10-16 yrs old just don't want to continue to put in the time necessary to advance at each new level. And that's ok, just don't let your size be the determining factor for success or failure.
quote:IF you feel the need to keep a kid back to improve his chances of making a varsity team,perhaps if the youngster just worked harder, he could compete with kids his OWN age.
The arrogance never ends does it? Maybe the kid who got behind because he was injured working so hard should have worked even harder?
No, you're misinterpreting me. I'm not talking about kids staying back to be older than the other kids. I'm talking about hard working kids staying back to be an 18yo senior.
BTW, it doesn't particularly matter if the goal is to play D1, D2, D3, JC...or to get a chance to play in HS. IMO, players shouldn't be held back to gain an advantage in sports. IMO, it is acceptable for players to be held back to keep from having an age disadvantage. IMO, it is OK for players who will gain an advantage in sports to be held back if there are legitimate academic or social maturity issues.
My son is an August birthday. When he turned five, we could have started him in kindergarten, but our attitude was: what's the hurry?
So he didn't start until the next year. We certainly didn't do it so he would have any kind of advantage at sports, but we did ask ourselves: "Would we rather he be one of the older kids in the class, or one of the younger kids?"
So I guess we would fall into the category that CADad brought up: we wanted him to be an 18 year old senior.
So he didn't start until the next year. We certainly didn't do it so he would have any kind of advantage at sports, but we did ask ourselves: "Would we rather he be one of the older kids in the class, or one of the younger kids?"
So I guess we would fall into the category that CADad brought up: we wanted him to be an 18 year old senior.
But Rob since you did, don't you agree that he has an unfair advantage over the kid who has an August birthday that entered the grade as the designated age set by the school system? Why does the school district set up ages for a child to enter school if the parent can just arbitarily choose when he or she can enter? Truthfully, I don't know how a parent can look another parent in the eye if his child makes a basketball team over their kid if he is over a year older than the kid and belongs in the grade above him.