Seems like some people are too emotional about this, and I know I'm drawing inferences here, but some seem to consider it "cheating" or "unfair" to hold a kid back. If the eligibility rules permit it, and you want your kid to succeed athletically to his fullest extent, then hold him back and quit complaining.

 

Point very well taken, but I would hesitate to characterize hold-back critics as wannabes or chronic complainers. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'll admit that I am uncomfortable with hold-backs on the basis of athletics even though I absolutely respect any family's right to do so. My discomfort stems from the fact that high-school sports are officially listed as extracurricular activities. By definition, "extracurricular" means "outside the regular curriculum or program of courses"; in other words, they supposedly are not the main focus of any student's high school experience -- so when someone takes an action that puts athletics ahead of academics, or even on par with academics, it bothers me. At the same time, I'm not one to judge; if sports are a kid's best chance at paying for a college education, or if they are a point of personal pride with a particular student-athlete or family, I definitely get it. I just don't want to be branded as a whiner just because I'm not a huge fan of the practice.

Point very well taken, but I would hesitate to characterize hold-back critics as wannabes or chronic complainers. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'll admit that I am uncomfortable with hold-backs on the basis of athletics even though I absolutely respect any family's right to do so. My discomfort stems from the fact that high-school sports are officially listed as extracurricular activities. By definition, "extracurricular" means "outside the regular curriculum or program of courses"; in other words, they supposedly are not the main focus of any student's high school experience -- so when someone takes an action that puts athletics ahead of academics, or even on par with academics, it bothers me. At the same time, I'm not one to judge; if sports are a kid's best chance at paying for a college education, or if they are a point of personal pride with a particular student-athlete or family, I definitely get it. I just don't want to be branded as a whiner just because I'm not a huge fan of the practice.

 

Hence the issue. It is being done SOLEY for the purposes of athletics in a lot of cases. Kids walking across the stage at graduation a few months shy of 20 yo. It's ridiculous in my opinion.

 

Now, if a kid started earlier and is really young in their class and parents feel the need to hold back, then do so. If a kid is struggling academically, then hold them back by all means. But lets not hold little Johnny back because he needs work on his jumper and with one more year he might get looks from Morehead and won't have to go the Berea. And if little Johnny really is that good then maybe a year of prep school like Oak Ridge or something would benefit him after he graduates.

Hence the issue. It is being done SOLEY for the purposes of athletics in a lot of cases. Kids walking across the stage at graduation a few months shy of 20 yo. It's ridiculous in my opinion.

 

Now, if a kid started earlier and is really young in their class and parents feel the need to hold back, then do so. If a kid is struggling academically, then hold them back by all means. But lets not hold little Johnny back because he needs work on his jumper and with one more year he might get looks from Morehead and won't have to go the Berea. And if little Johnny really is that good then maybe a year of prep school like Oak Ridge or something would benefit him after he graduates.

What if it helps them attain an athletic scholarship, is it still ridiculous?

What if it helps them attain an athletic scholarship, is it still ridiculous?

 

A kid graduating when he's almost 20? Yes. There are other avenues.

A kid graduating when he's almost 20? Yes. There are other avenues.

Almost 20 is 19. Aug 1st is the cutoff, so even the oldest of kids would be 3+ months away. And most kids could use another year of maturation. Don't let your coach goggles blur the forest because of the trees.

 

And what would those avenues be, for instance?

Almost 20 is 19. Aug 1st is the cutoff, so even the oldest of kids would be 3+ months away. And most kids could use another year of maturation. Don't let your coach goggles blur the forest because of the trees.

And what would those avenues be, for instance?

 

I would think my opinion would be opposite of most coaches. I would think the majority of coaches would be for it, not against it. Heck, I am on the other end of the spectrum. I have more kids who are YOUNGER than average, graduating or will graduate when still 17, than fall in the older than average category.

 

There are dozens of prep schools that little Johnny can go to...if he is actually good enough to get looks and go to collage on an athletic scholarship, that will help him towards that much more than holding him back a year.

I would think my opinion would be opposite of most coaches. I would think the majority of coaches would be for it, not against it. Heck, I am on the other end of the spectrum. I have more kids who are YOUNGER than average, graduating or will graduate when still 17, than fall in the older than average category.

 

There are dozens of prep schools that little Johnny can go to...if he is actually good enough to get looks and go to collage on an athletic scholarship, that will help him towards that much more than holding him back a year.

Yes, because those prep schools are free, right?

Yes, because those prep schools are free, right?

 

Never said they were.

Again, this isnt about the holdback part, it is about the eligibility under the 4 years to play part. If what I was told is true, I think that one of the teams still competing plays a player that is actually ineligible. I thought that if you finish 8th grade you have four years to compete and the clock starts at the completion of 8th grade. If you move and repeat 8th grade you will not be eligible your senior year, the clock does not restart.

Never said they were.

Then that's not a realistic option in most cases. Parents who held their kids back to ship them off to prep school just isn't often reality.

Again, this isnt about the holdback part, it is about the eligibility under the 4 years to play part. If what I was told is true, I think that one of the teams still competing plays a player that is actually ineligible. I thought that if you finish 8th grade you have four years to compete and the clock starts at the completion of 8th grade. If you move and repeat 8th grade you will not be eligible your senior year, the clock does not restart.

Which team?

Again, this isnt about the holdback part, it is about the eligibility under the 4 years to play part. If what I was told is true, I think that one of the teams still competing plays a player that is actually ineligible. I thought that if you finish 8th grade you have four years to compete and the clock starts at the completion of 8th grade. If you move and repeat 8th grade you will not be eligible your senior year, the clock does not restart.

 

Quite honestly...I don't know how this works and it may be a loophole in the system. I would think, though that if the young man was passed by the system yet held back by his parents to repeat 8th grade at another school, then that is their prerogative, but that the young man should have been ineligible to play for his new 8th grade team. To me, that's the bigger question. And technically, since he never enrolled and started anywhere as a freshman, how can the "clock" start ticking? As stated before, as long as he didn't turn 19 before the Aug.1 deadline his senior year, then I don't know how he wouldn't be eligible.

I wont name the team because I dont know for sure this happened. The statement made to me was "Do you ever wonder why player finished 8th moved then repeated 8th and now plays as a senior?" I said "Are you sure" Answer "yes and I cant believe no one brings it up" So I inquired about the rule because if its within the rules, then it doesnt matter. As for the ineligible second 8th grade year that is the way it would be under the new rule I think. The clock starts on 9th grade enrollement under the new rule and 8th grade completion under the old rule. If I am wrong about the rule just cancel the thread.

Almost 20 is 19. Aug 1st is the cutoff, so even the oldest of kids would be 3+ months away. And most kids could use another year of maturation. Don't let your coach goggles blur the forest because of the trees.

 

And what would those avenues be, for instance?

 

Military..

Military..

 

Academy or boot camp?