Those guys from Moeller and Trinity probably had muscle definition and no baby fat because of their schools' training programs, not because of how old they were.

 

That's doesnt hurt either.

I know each state is different on cut off date for starting school. When my son started school we lived in Indiana and he was not allowed to start Kindergarten when he would have in Kentucky. We tried to get him in but the red tape of starting was ridiculous so we just waited a year. Had we lived in Kentucky at the time he would have graduated a month before his 18th Birthday, but due to starting school in Indiana he Graduated a month prior to his 19th birthday.

 

I have the exact same situation, Jumper Dad. We got a big NO WAY when we tried to start early.

I can relate a personal experience. My brother has an October birthday, mine is November. He graduated when he was 17. I graduated when 18. My mother has always said she wished she had 'held back' my brother. Nothing to do with sports or physical maturity. Just that boys can use that extra year to be more mature throughout their school years.

 

Kentucky does allow for the 'early start' but many states require the later start age. Missouri is definitely one of those states.

I can relate a personal experience. My brother has an October birthday, mine is November. He graduated when he was 17. I graduated when 18. My mother has always said she wished she had 'held back' my brother. Nothing to do with sports or physical maturity. Just that boys can use that extra year to be more mature throughout their school years.

 

Kentucky does allow for the 'early start' but many states require the later start age. Missouri is definitely one of those states.

 

If you disagree, tell me why:

 

If Kentucky kids had to be 5 by July 1 to enter Kindergarten, our school test scores would improve and more of our kids would get athletic and academic scholarships. My rationale is that older kids will be more mature and do better.

 

In 2012, we had almost the same team as 2011. The biggest difference was they were all a year older. We went from 2-8 to 8-5, district champs, and reaching the quarterfinals. I am not taking anything away from the effort of the kids and coaches. But, I thought one factor that made every player better was that he was a year older.

 

 

If I am wrong, tell me why. But, would our schools be more highly regarded? Would our students' performance improve?

Interesting thread.

 

I went to school in Maryland with an October birthday; graduated at 17; started college at 17, graduated college at 21.

 

Both of my children were born and raised here in Kentucky. Son had an August birthday; graduated high school at 17, started college 3 months later (had just turned 18), graduated at 21. His thing was academics and we recognized that very early. To have held him back would have, in our estimation, been a serious mistake.

 

Daughter's birthday is September 30. She was ALWAYS the youngest in her class. Bright and athletic; but we realized that she wasn't a D-1 athlete. Always competing with kids 6 months to 18 months older than her; particularly in AAU track & field. However, we recognized - parents AND child - that a D-1 athletic scholarship was not in the cards even if we had held her back. So we didn't. She got to participate at Georgetown College in track & field and enjoyed it immensely.

 

What it came down to for us is that our childrens' college financial assistance was going to come from the "scholastic side" rather than the "athletics side".

 

I don't have issues with parents who hold their children back; as long as it is thought out.

Another slant to this argument is that many males are just not ready for college at age 17. This article in Forbes notes the declining number of males entering college.

 

The Male-Female Ratio in College - Forbes

 

I believe this trend is destructive and needs to be reversed. Unfortunately, for us it is too late to hold back our son. I believe studies like this one support an academic argument for either delaying enrollment, or extending an early one.

If you disagree, tell me why:

 

If Kentucky kids had to be 5 by July 1 to enter Kindergarten, our school test scores would improve and more of our kids would get athletic and academic scholarships. My rationale is that older kids will be more mature and do better.

 

In 2012, we had almost the same team as 2011. The biggest difference was they were all a year older. We went from 2-8 to 8-5, district champs, and reaching the quarterfinals. I am not taking anything away from the effort of the kids and coaches. But, I thought one factor that made every player better was that he was a year older.

 

 

If I am wrong, tell me why. But, would our schools be more highly regarded? Would our students' performance improve?

 

It seems it would help in the areas you mention. Its mainly a 'boy' issue. As the stories here indicate most girls do fine at any start age. But boys seem to benefit from the extra year. Not sure of all the issues but in talking with my wife she thinks that to make it happen you would need all-day universal kindergarten. Then the 'start' can be the same age but just starting at kindergarten vs. 1st grade.

 

Here is the MO requirements - link here.

 

"A child is eligible for admission to first grade if the child reaches the age of six (6) before the first day of August of the school year beginning in that calendar year."

Here's part of this. We're not all talking about holding back an 8th grader. I have no problem with holding a kid at home for one more year, and i bet if their mother is at home with them they might want to hang on as well. I don't think one year to a 5 year old is a big deal.

 

I do think it would be a big deal to hold back a 14 year old, that's just silly. but your 5 year old might benefit.

Another slant to this argument is that many males are just not ready for college at age 17. This article in Forbes notes the declining number of males entering college.

 

I would agree with this. As well as many females are not ready for college at age 17. People can talk about how they managed just fine back in the day, graduating at 16 or 17 and heading to college. But I think that today college is much more expensive and much more competitive.

Why not be a little older and mature when you take the almighty ACT, one of the biggest benchmarks for determining schollys and college acceptance? Why not be older and more mature so you can handle the accelerated and AP classes---planting more seeds for success in college?

Also---let's not forget about the self esteem component that comes with being on the older end of the class rather than the younger. That in itself is huge for so many aspects of success in high school, including leadership, which will help with scholarships.

NYC Public School Parents: Kindergarten cut-off dates and lifelong success

Those guys from Moeller and Trinity probably had muscle definition and no baby fat because of their schools' training programs, not because of how old they were.

 

THIS NAILS IT!!! Sure some of the Trinty players are most likey hold backs but I can promise you it has more to do with Bob Beaty's training program more than anything. I attended the UK High School coaching clinic two years ago in which coach Beaty spoke and defined his strength and conditioning program. I will tell you it's jaw dropping. What he does with Groups A, B, and C clearly is a asset to his program and State Titles. You don't want to be in Group C I can promise you that!

Thought of something... Wasn't Amobi Oklye 16yo in his Soph year at UL?

Now do the math...

THIS NAILS IT!!! Sure some of the Trinty players are most likey hold backs but I can promise you it has more to do with Bob Beaty's training program more than anything. I attended the UK High School coaching clinic two years ago in which coach Beaty spoke and defined his strength and conditioning program. I will tell you it's jaw dropping. What he does with Groups A, B, and C clearly is a asset to his program and State Titles. You don't want to be in Group C I can promise you that!

 

I wondered how long it would take until the ole " we work harder that you" excuse would come out. This horse has been beat to death. Let me outline why Trinity is great.

 

1. They have double the male population of any other school thus giving them more guys to choose out of.

 

2. Tradition, facilities all brings athletes into the school.

 

3. Diversity of genetics. This one doesn't get hit on much but living in large metropolitan area a more diverse population can have kids versus a rural area where the same tired genetics is producing the same type kid that it has for years.

 

4. Money. I've never been there but I'm sure that they have the nicest of everything where most schools I know of have the same training equipment that they have for years. Money also allows for the hiring of more coaches. More capable coaches allows for better football players. Look how Bowling Green dominates year in and year out. Well all of their coaches were former head coaches. They should do well.

 

5. Parents have money. Schools who are private have parents who have money who at some point in their lives motivated, and thus will motivate their son to do well. Success while it isn't born in can be passed from generation to generation just like a kid that sees no way out can be passed from generation to generation. This would seem to be more the case at private schools.

 

Competition. All players on Trinity's team know if they don't preform, that there is a guy behind them that can play. This is not the case everywhere in the state. I've seen coaches have to move around 4 players before when 1 gets hurt in some games. It's just really hard to keep consistent depth when you don't have all the things outlined above.

 

Trinity's dedication is not heads and shoulders over some other teams in Ky. They have advantages that other kids do not. I'm not complaining about anything I'm just stating facts.

It's hard to argue with some of the numbers that say holding a kid back helps them excel. On the other hand though, I've seen a lot of "young" kids do very well. I had two friends in high school with July birthdays, that got D1 rides (1 in baseball and 1 in wrestling) despite only being 17 at graduation. I have a late in the school year birthday, and still managed a D1 baseball ride. I think it really comes down to how quickly a kid matures. There is no magic number, and some kids mature faster than others. Everyone knew a couple guys that were shaving in 8th grade. He was a stud football player...until we all caught up to him in maturity. On the other side, I knew a kid that grew almost 5 inches after entering college.....and he turned 18 early in his senior year of high school. You just never know how things are going to shake out, and basing a decision like this solely on the idea of the possibility of getting an athletic scholarship is a case of tunnel vision. First far more kids get academic scholarships..only a handful get athletic scholarships, and it's a lot easier to spot academic prowess than athletic, which is dependent on so many other characteristics (size and speed especially, which for the most part aren't coachable). My three kids are on all sides of the issue. My daughter will be barely 18 when she graduates in 3 weeks...holding her back a year wouldn't have helped her athletically and probably would have had a negative affect on her academically. My middle son has a January birthday and is solid, but not spectacular athletically. Holding him back a year (which we could have done and he still would have been eligible to play his senior year), wouldn't have helped him either. My youngest is one of the oldest kids in his class....but is a late maturing kid physically, and is just a good athlete...he has potential, but right now is just not physically mature as other kids, even some that are younger than him. His little advantage age wise hasn't helped him at all. It's all about genetics in my mind.

 

Based on my experiences, I would make this decision strictly on an academic level....not a sports level. Those that make this decision solely on sports, I think are not only very short sighted, but also are putting the cart before the horse.

I wondered how long it would take until the ole " we work harder that you" excuse would come out. This horse has been beat to death. Let me outline why Trinity is great.

 

1. They have double the male population of any other school thus giving them more guys to choose out of.

 

2. Tradition, facilities all brings athletes into the school.

 

3. Diversity of genetics. This one doesn't get hit on much but living in large metropolitan area a more diverse population can have kids versus a rural area where the same tired genetics is producing the same type kid that it has for years.

 

4. Money. I've never been there but I'm sure that they have the nicest of everything where most schools I know of have the same training equipment that they have for years. Money also allows for the hiring of more coaches. More capable coaches allows for better football players. Look how Bowling Green dominates year in and year out. Well all of their coaches were former head coaches. They should do well.

 

5. Parents have money. Schools who are private have parents who have money who at some point in their lives motivated, and thus will motivate their son to do well. Success while it isn't born in can be passed from generation to generation just like a kid that sees no way out can be passed from generation to generation. This would seem to be more the case at private schools.

 

Competition. All players on Trinity's team know if they don't preform, that there is a guy behind them that can play. This is not the case everywhere in the state. I've seen coaches have to move around 4 players before when 1 gets hurt in some games. It's just really hard to keep consistent depth when you don't have all the things outlined above.

 

Trinity's dedication is not heads and shoulders over some other teams in Ky. They have advantages that other kids do not. I'm not complaining about anything I'm just stating facts.

 

I don't think Mr. Sixer understands the stages of puberty. In many kids, they accumulate body fat prior to growth. And if they do not have this body fat, growth can be stunted. This observed in inner city and in rural adolescent populations. This has nothing to do with the quality of conditioning.

 

As for Trinity and St. X, they should be playing prep academies, or in a league like the GCL, who have the same advantages they do. Tuition students with no enrollment boundaries. T and X playing public schools, especially in KY, is just flat out exploitative.