Don't take this the wrong way, but most would find it weird that you are 19 and already a junior in college. Which, for the record...kudos to you. And, I mean that. You are far and away an exception more than the rule.

It may be unusual now but 30 years ago it wasn't. I was in the same boat as a kid. I was an October birthday, I started school when I was supposed to, and I was always one of the youngest in my class. I started college at 17 and was a 19 year old Junior two years later just like AvidTiger.

 

I made it through OK because I was a pretty good student, but my biggest deficiency was a low maturity level. I wasn't ready for that kind of responsibility and I wish I would have been a year, or even two years older when I started college.

I couldn't imagine sending my barely 17 old girl off to college. I know what happens in college.

 

I couldn't either. But that's what happens to all the kids who go to Covington Latin School. They all graduate 2 years early. We strongly considered sending our daughter there, but in the end, decided that there was no reason to rush her out into the world.

 

The problem with putting the hard restriction on 19 year olds, is you affect some kids who need that extra year, whether it's based on social or academic reasons. There is also the kid who got held back for other reasons. My cousin for example, was extremely sick during one year in elementary school, and had to be held back for not finishing all the work. With his October birthday, he was one of those kids who graduated at 19. By punishing trying to punish the few that are held back strictly for sports, you will also catch a bunch of kids who are held back for legit reasons. Remember the vast majority of kids end up not playing sports in college. Not every 19 year old is a stud athlete, and I would say the vast majority are not. Managing to prevent the exception from occurring, is usually a bad idea, and causes more problems than just dealing with the exceptions.

IMO, football is the sport where differences in physical maturity has the MOST competitive (and safety) impact. The problem here is that the current rule provides for blanket eligibility, without any regard as to why the individual is 19 years and still in high school. As a result, we have entire teams of 19 year olds. The remedy here is for the held back child to play varsity sports according to their age, and not grade. In addition, the primary school enrollment age needs to be standard at 5 by Aug 1.

Don't take this the wrong way, but most would find it weird that you are 19 and already a junior in college. Which, for the record...kudos to you. And, I mean that. You are far and away an exception more than the rule.

 

All a function of age. When I started my junior year of college I was 2 months shy of my 20th birthday. No skipping grades; just happened to be born in October.

I just think it's a non issue.

Sure they should. Absolutely.

 

For the record, b/c I have a feeling it's going there....but, I've never seen a kid (males in particularly) be negatively effected by starting school/being held back and finishing closer to or right at their 19th birthday than their 17th/18th. NEVER.

No kidding being a year older than almost everyone around them would be a positive, as far as kids go and the interactions, especially in the locker room.

I'm 19 and a junior in college, I would find it weird if I were still playing high school football.

Depending on your birthday this is not unusual.

IMO, football is the sport where differences in physical maturity has the MOST competitive (and safety) impact. The problem here is that the current rule provides for blanket eligibility, without any regard as to why the individual is 19 years and still in high school. As a result, we have entire teams of 19 year olds. The remedy here is for the held back child to play varsity sports according to their age, and not grade. In addition, the primary school enrollment age needs to be standard at 5 by Aug 1.

 

While on the surface this may appear to be correct, if you take an honest look at it, do we really have an issue with 19 year olds running roughshod over younger, less physically mature players?? While I guess it's a possibility, I simply cannot think of any cases where a 19 year old has just been so physically overwhelming, he's a danger to others.

While on the surface this may appear to be correct, if you take an honest look at it, do we really have an issue with 19 year olds running roughshod over younger, less physically mature players?? While I guess it's a possibility, I simply cannot think of any cases where a 19 year old has just been so physically overwhelming, he's a danger to others.

 

Me either.

So if it isn't 19 then would 20 be ok? How about 21 or 22 (so long as you havent exhausted your 4 years of eligibility)?

It may be unusual now but 30 years ago it wasn't. I was in the same boat as a kid. I was an October birthday, I started school when I was supposed to, and I was always one of the youngest in my class. I started college at 17 and was a 19 year old Junior two years later just like AvidTiger.

 

I made it through OK because I was a pretty good student, but my biggest deficiency was a low maturity level. I wasn't ready for that kind of responsibility and I wish I would have been a year, or even two years older when I started college.

 

I was exactly the same, late October birthday.

So if it isn't 19 then would 20 be ok? How about 21 or 22 (so long as you havent exhausted your 4 years of eligibility)?

 

Depends on the situation. I'm thinking an 18 year old freshman has a special set of circumstances and that he probably doesn't play sports.

So if it isn't 19 then would 20 be ok? How about 21 or 22 (so long as you havent exhausted your 4 years of eligibility)?

You bring up an interesting point: men have peak testosterone levels normally at 22 years of age. That is when a big difference can be seen in physical maturity. Most of us understand that, after benching 100 pounds more at 23 then we did at 18 and telling everyone at the gym, "I wish I was this strong in high school".

 

Not that this has much to do with the present argument, but interesting nonetheless. So, for the sake of the argument, the cut off has to be prior to the player's 22 birthday.

Here's my son's situation: He has always been a very good student and was never in danger of being held back for academic reasons. He was always bigger then everyone in his class, and at times bigger then his teachers in elementary school, so he was never physically immature. He has always been very socially and mentally mature, so he was never in danger of being held back for those reasons. His birthday is in October and started kindergarden at age 5, as I believe he should have, and turned 6 in kindergarten. He was 18 years and 7 months when he graduated high school last month, as I think he should have been.

 

Now, he was accelerated socially, physically, academically, and mentally and graduated on time with no problems. But, for the sake of this discussion, what if he was lacking in one of those categories, perhaps at a young age? What if he was not academically, physically, or socially mature at the level he should have been in say, 3rd grade and was held back. He would have been 19 in October of his senior year.

 

So, in my mind, a person, normally, should graduate at, or near, 18 years of age and should be at, or near, 18 when they start college. If I, as the parent, start my child at the age that will accomplish that goal of 18 years when starting college, and he has to be held back one year, probably in elementary school, and maturers on track the rest of the time and is very academically, physically and socially mature in high school and plays sports, why should he be penalized for starting school on time and needing an extra year in elementary school to be at the appropriate level?

 

If he needs two extra years, well that is a different story. A line has to be made somewhere.

You bring up an interesting point: men have peak testosterone levels normally at 22 years of age. That is when a big difference can be seen in physical maturity. Most of us understand that, after benching 100 pounds more at 23 then we did at 18 and telling everyone at the gym, "I wish I was this strong in high school".

 

Not that this has much to do with the present argument, but interesting nonetheless. So, for the sake of the argument, the cut off has to be prior to the player's 22 birthday.

 

So that explains it.:grumpy: