I remember three kids did it in 5th grade. We still give them a hard time about it. Spin, I think you're forgetting how rough one's peers can be. Having said that, I still think its up to each family to decide and have no problems with it.

I admit you may be right on the money. And a poster above may have hit the nail on the head, it's so commonplace here in EKY that it's really not a stigma at all. Sometimes kids may get grief if they aren't held back if that makes any sense to some of you.

Maybe I shouldn't have started it.

 

Many folks have made excellent points, but if the parents think it's going to be the best thing for their child (educational, maturity, sport's, cost saving, etc), who am I to criticize.

Sorry LB you are not getting off the hook that easy. Your thread is titled 'holding back' a child for sports? What are you thoughts on that subject matter. Not considering educational, cost savings and maturity?

My oldest was an August birthday, pretty good sized boy. My wife went to a seminar about when to start a child. Hands down they said oldest children, especially boys, should start late. He was a bit immature and it worked out well for him. He often played up in sports so that part didn't matter. It was all about the education and development of the student. My sister in law is also a 5th grade teacher. She says it takes her about 3 weeks at the start of every school year and she can almost line the kids up by birthdays by the way the act.

On a similar subject, I'm not a big fan of Latin School type programs either. A neighbor sent his 4'6" kid to Latin skipping 2 years. Than he had to nerve to complain that his 16 year old had to room with a 19 year old 'man'. What did he expect?

I did not turn 18 until Feb. of frosh year in college because I graduated HS in 3 yrs. I survived. But if I had a do-over, it would be different. I hated being the youngest one in college!

 

We had a 16 year old come in w/ us at Hanover. You had to take a step back and realize how young he was, playing college football at 16. He could have been something special if he would have graduated high school at 18. Turned out ok for him, he's a JAG stationed in England right now.

 

On the opposite side, by boys were held back in 1st grade b/c they had serious trouble w/ language arts. Just so happens that they are very athletic for their age group (judging by soccer performance) so it is even more pronounced when playing against kids a year younger. Like Clyde said, if this is academic, or before school starts, then no problem. If it is in the hopes of landing a kid an athletic scholarship or academic scholarship, I'm not a fan of that.

Real-world football scenario.

 

Senior turns 19 in early August. Held back but allowed to play because he turned 19 after 8.1 .

 

Sophomore starting on the other team who is still 14. Won't be 15 until late August or maybe late September.

 

Those 4 years difference are huge on the gridiron. You're talking a kid that could be a "man" vs a kid that may have some size relative to his age but he is not "man strong."

Real-world football scenario.

 

Senior turns 19 in early August. Held back but allowed to play because he turned 19 after 8.1 .

 

Sophomore starting on the other team who is still 14. Won't be 15 until late August or maybe late September.

 

Those 4 years difference are huge on the gridiron. You're talking a kid that could be a "man" vs a kid that may have some size relative to his age but he is not "man strong."

 

That would be crazy, I played my JR of college as a 19 year old. If you are 19 and not dominating, then you are not all that good. If you are getting held back for athletic reasons, you better have been one of the best kids in your age group originally, and just need that extra year to grow to become one of the best in the state. Otherwise, it makes no sense.

Sorry LB you are not getting off the hook that easy. Your thread is titled 'holding back' a child for sports? What are you thoughts on that subject matter. Not considering educational, cost savings and maturity?

My oldest was an August birthday, pretty good sized boy. My wife went to a seminar about when to start a child. Hands down they said oldest children, especially boys, should start late. He was a bit immature and it worked out well for him. He often played up in sports so that part didn't matter. It was all about the education and development of the student. My sister in law is also a 5th grade teacher. She says it takes her about 3 weeks at the start of every school year and she can almost line the kids up by birthdays by the way the act.

On a similar subject, I'm not a big fan of Latin School type programs either. A neighbor sent his 4'6" kid to Latin skipping 2 years. Than he had to nerve to complain that his 16 year old had to room with a 19 year old 'man'. What did he expect?

 

I have no problem with it. If that is what the parents think is going to best for their child I say go for it. In all reality I don't know if this helps their chances at a scholly or not, but more power to them.

I think it's a ridiculous practice, especially when you consider that colleges dole out very few "full rides" for athletic reasons. In Kentucky, the ceiling for most "best on the team" athletes is the JV squad at one of the Mid-South schools on a partial, where they still end up with a semester bill equal to what it would have been had they just gone to EKU or WKU and not played. The ones who get the full rides will get noticed no matter what and don't need a redshirt year.

 

And I believe that way too many of those who do it strictly for athletic reasons do it with the unbelievably unrealistic hopes that Little Johnny goes to play for the Big Blue at Rupp.

I think it's a ridiculous practice, especially when you consider that colleges dole out very few "full rides" for athletic reasons. In Kentucky, the ceiling for most "best on the team" athletes is the JV squad at one of the Mid-South schools on a partial, where they still end up with a semester bill equal to what it would have been had they just gone to EKU or WKU and not played. The ones who get the full rides will get noticed no matter what and don't need a redshirt year.

 

And I believe that way too many of those who do it strictly for athletic reasons do it with the unbelievably unrealistic hopes that Little Johnny goes to play for the Big Blue at Rupp.

 

A lot of times this scenario is orchestrated by an overbaring parent. So who is the move truly intended to benefit, the athlete or the dad living vicariously through that athlete?

I have not problem with it at all. One job as a parent is to try to give your child every advantage that you can. As long as the athlete is of KHSAA age, I don't see a problem with it at all.

A lot of times this scenario is orchestrated by an overbaring parent. So who is the move truly intended to benefit, the athlete or the dad living vicariously through that athlete?

 

Of course, my answer is the latter. They're usually the same ones who provide intense shot doctor clinics for their kids after practice, or stand up at the fence during Little Johnny's at-bats so they can break down what he did wrong afterward, and often during.

My sister held her son back before he started school. He turned 18 the summer before his senior year. I done the same thing with my daughter and will do the same with my son. I wish more would do it before they start school and not wait until after. Now if they are held back for academic reasons after they start then that is different.

 

But it works so much better to just wait to start them.

My sister held her son back before he started school. He turned 18 the summer before his senior year. I done the same thing with my daughter and will do the same with my son. I wish more would do it before they start school and not wait until after. Now if they are held back for academic reasons after they start then that is different.

 

But it works so much better to just wait to start them.

 

This will offend some, but I heard an interesting take on holding girls back with regards to athletic reasons. Simply put, holding girls back can sometimes negatively impact girls that are involved with Track/X Country. Ill hang up, and wonder if anybody else can guess why?

 

Think about this; often times many of the top female runners in our state are young, middle school and sometimes even younger. The older they get, the worse they become.

This will offend some, but I heard an interesting take on holding girls back with regards to athletic reasons. Simply put, holding girls back can sometimes negatively impact girls that are involved with Track/X Country. Ill hang up, and wonder if anybody else can guess why?

 

Think about this; often times many of the top female runners in our state are young, middle school and sometimes even younger. The older they get, the worse they become.

 

Because they develop?

This will offend some, but I heard an interesting take on holding girls back with regards to athletic reasons. Simply put, holding girls back can sometimes negatively impact girls that are involved with Track/X Country. Ill hang up, and wonder if anybody else can guess why?

 

Think about this; often times many of the top female runners in our state are young, middle school and sometimes even younger. The older they get, the worse they become.

 

I would agree with that for track and cross country and probably gymnastics.

I don't think it matters that much in sports. Some boys shave in middle school and never get any taller past the 8th grade. Others grow until there 20 years old. I think the road may be harder for the kid that use to be bigger than everyone else.