Reply to Pet peeve! Why do parents of holdback kids

Forum Index » Sports General Discussion

Reply to "Pet peeve! Why do parents of holdback kids "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Yes how annoying!

Little league forces the summer birthday redshirt kids to play their correct age group (rather than grade). I was always glad about that one.

It’s more frustrating in later years IMHO. For example a freshman baseball player that is almost 16 (turns 16 in June). And there are so many like this- usually they were held back in Kindergarten but more and more are  “reclassing”. I know two 8th grade boys who are repeating 8th grade next year - not for any academic reason but for sports.  
[/quote]

Why on Earth would it be more frustrating after the kids go through puberty?  [/quote]

Because a great 16 year old is 99.9% better than a great 14 year old, and that age gap difference follows both kids throughout all of HS.  The 0.1% is reserved for the insane athletes like Cooper Flagg who reclassed the other way...graduated HS after his junior year at 17, so he will just turn 19 after his one year at Duke and will be the #1 NBA draft pick.

The kids that reclass in 8th grade aren't weak athletes.  Most are the strongest athletes.  Again, colleges don't care how old you are.  That's why you have 26 year old college QBs.  Also, I think during the NCAA basketball tournament that they said the average age of the Auburn starting 5 was slightly older than one NBA team (I can't remember which team).[/quote]

If your high school kid can’t get a spot on the team on his own merits, that just means he’s not destined to go far in his sport.  Once the kids are through puberty age has very little to do with how good the kids are.[/quote]

Spoken as someone who doesn't have a kid at a sports powerhouse school.  Of course you are completely missing the point...it's not weak kids that are re-classing...it's the strongest kids doing this because they are competing nationally for D1 spots.

[/quote]

There is functionality no difference between a talented and athletic 16 year old versus a 17 year old versus an 18 year old.  Get a grip.

You know they have 18 year olds competing against 22 years in college, don’t you?  Are you going to cry about that, too?[/quote]

If you don't want to accept the facts, there is no help.

Again, the average age of college teams in revenue sports (and soccer) is now 21+.  For every 18-year-old able to make a D1 team there are 10x 22 year olds playing.

You keep spewing nonsense and it's clear you don't get the landscape whatsoever.[/quote]

The fact is that if you’re whining that the only reason Timmy made the team over Billy is because Timmy is 18 and Billy is only 17 you’re being delusional.  Sorry.[/quote]

It’s clear you don’t have a kid that’s a strong athlete.  If you did you wouldn’t be making this moronic comments.

Look at the top 500 HS players in nearly any sport and it’s 95% comprised of the current graduating class…with 4% of current juniors and 1% freshman/sophs.

Premier League soccer (highest pro league in UK) allows 16 year olds and there is one in the entire league and he only played a total of 30 minutes all season.  There are 25 18 year olds, several of which are starters.  There are 100+ 20 year olds. There are more 39 year old players than 16.

The idea that 18 and 16 doesn’t matter is ridiculous.

[/quote]

Those freshman will be seniors someday, dummy.  Then [b]they’ll [/b]be in the 95%.  What the hell are you even on about?[/quote]

You are a complete dipshit…making it clear that yes there is a noticeable difference between an 18 year old (or 19 year old) senior and even a 17 year old junior or 16 year old sophomore.

Please, stop posting.  You are embarrassing yourself.[/quote]

LOL.  Let’s line up a bunch of senior athletes and you can guess if they’re 17, 18, or 19!  Since it’s SO noticeable.  I’m guessing you’d be fired from that carnival spot after the first day.

Listen, there is ALWAYS going to be someone older than Larlo.  At some point you just have to deal with it, man.

[/quote]

It actually is pretty noticeable…in fact quite obvious.  You just keep digging and it’s weird.

….but you don’t have an athlete, so why do you care?[/quote]

What’s the functional difference between the 18 year old who is 375 days older than the 16 year old versus the 17 year old who is 350 days older than another 17 year old?  Logically the older 17 year old is closer to the 18 year old in age, while the younger 17 year old is closer to the 16 year old, but if both 17 year olds are 17 on the *arbitrary* cutoff date, they compete against each other, while the 18 and 16 year old might be two full years apart despite having an almost identical age gap.

(I have starred the key word for you.)[/quote]

Ask the parent who redshirted the 18 year old because they couldn’t stand the possibility that their son would be at most 364 days younger than his classmates.

That’s the rub here:  you can’t simultaneously redshirt a child and then claim the age discrepancy doesn’t matter.   [/quote]

You are deliberately missing the point; I assume because you can’t or won’t admit that after the kids go through puberty there are MANY factors that are FAR more important to their athletic success than their age.  Size, skill, overall athleticism, etc.[/quote]

And yet, [b]all else being equal[/b], until around the age of 26-28 when male athletic performance peaks, an extra year of age does confer an advantage.

Yes, the age cutoffs are arbitrary. But you seem to believe that arbitrary means illegitimate—which it does not.  An age cutoffs must exist, even if it is an arbitrary date.

Again, the fact that redshirting exists proves that people believe there is something materially gained by redshirting. Otherwise it would not happen. And if you as a parent aren’t willing to let little Aiden suffer the disadvantage of being a maximum of 364 years younger than his classmates, then don’t come around and tell us 375 days is no big deal and other factors matter.  Your own actions betray your beliefs.

I guarantee you that if all sports were age based and if redshirts were forbidden from participating in high school sports in their senior year (if they turn 18 before the start of the cutoff dates), then redshirting would immediately become rare and reserved for the kids that were outliers in their developmental delays. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics