Now that Gryche's clarified his intentions, I can come out of hiding and return to the site. Whew! I was nervous there for a while.

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

On a serious note, folks are making more of this issue than they should in my opinion. You'd be very, very surprised of the number of kids that have been started late or held back through out the state of Kentucky. A whole lot of the time for very valid reasons.

 

And have a Merry Christmas my friend.

 

I don't think you can really downplay the physical advantages a 18-19 year old man compared to 16-17 year old kids, on the athletic side of things. Not a problem, but definitely an advantage for the older student. Nonetheless, every kid deserves an opportunity and I have no problem with any of it.

Raiderbird, I do remember that Farley skit, my son likes to play that skit on Youtube as well.

LN, the woodford reserve is my fav.

 

Now someone get us back on track please.

I don't think you can really downplay the physical advantages a 18-19 year old man compared to 16-17 year old kids, on the athletic side of things. Not a problem, but definitely an advantage for the older student. Nonetheless, every kid deserves an opportunity and I have no problem with any of it.

 

The physical advantage at 19 is huge. He could be going up against a soon-to-be 15 year old in the first game of the season. That's quite a difference.

The physical advantage at 19 is huge. He could be going up against a soon-to-be 15 year old in the first game of the season. That's quite a difference.

 

Then don't play the soon to be 15 year old.

 

I have to admit I get a chuckle out of the age debate. I hear it from both sides on a regular basis. Heck, there was even legislation entered to raise the age either the last session or the session before it. Thankfully it went no where. Then on the other hand there was the mom trying to lower the maximum age.

 

Our age rule pretty much falls in line with the majority of the rest of the states and I'm sure if the Kentucky Medical Association felt that it was putting some younger kids in harms way, they'd have advised the KHSAA and it would have been changed. They didn't. Frankly the rule is fine.

 

Now if we want to get back to the debate about whether a kid should be help back purely for athletic reasons, I don't think so a kid should. But then again, that's not the subject of this thread either. Best N. Ky JV players? Heck, its Christmas...all the kids that played JV this year were wonderful! Merry XMas all.:ylsuper:

Then don't play the soon to be 15 year old.

 

 

If he's one of your best 11, he plays. He's just going to be at a disadvantage against the 19 year old.

 

As for a potential adjustment to the rule, maybe it would be best if we didn't allow a kid to play if he was going to turn 19 either anytime during the actual season or anytime during the school year.

If he's one of your best 11, he plays. He's just going to be at a disadvantage against the 19 year old.

 

As for a potential adjustment to the rule, maybe it would be best if we didn't allow a kid to play if he was going to turn 19 either anytime during the actual season or anytime during the school year.

 

My son, a senior, turned 18 late in the football season. Now by your rule, hypothetically, had he been held back in grade school, he would have been ineligible to play in his senior year. Doesn't seem right.

If he's one of your best 11, he plays. He's just going to be at a disadvantage against the 19 year old.

 

As for a potential adjustment to the rule, maybe it would be best if we didn't allow a kid to play if he was going to turn 19 either anytime during the actual season or anytime during the school year.

 

The teams at a disadvantage if a 14 year old is one of 11 best in varsity football.

The teams at a disadvantage if a 14 year old is one of 11 best in varsity football.

 

A soon-to-be 15 year old is in the right class if his birthday is late August or anytime in September. So we're talking about a legit sophomore playing varsity football. On the other hand, you're talking about a kid who is not with his normal class based on his age and should be in college.

 

I don't know what the "right" answer is. Maybe its what we have now. My original point is that based on the current rules, you can have a 19 year old (a young man) vs a 14 almost 15 year old (who is in his right class). That's a huge difference.

My son, a senior, turned 18 late in the football season. Now by your rule, hypothetically, had he been held back in grade school, he would have been ineligible to play in his senior year. Doesn't seem right.

 

That's why I doubt it would ever be changed from what we have now. While I'm completely convinced that many will pay lip service to holding their kid back for academic or maturity reasons, the great majority of boys in this case are held back 100% for athletic reasons.

I'd say 90% of schools nowdays have JV programs so you are going to have a JV program with 14/16 yr old kids likely competing with other 14/16 yr old kids. Back when i was in school in the rockin 80's, we didnt have JV. We played Varsity as 15 yr old Sophomores and had to look across the line at 18/19 yr old seniors.

 

Now if you are 14 and a stud playing Varsity then its free game brother. Step into the ring with lions and see what your made of.

My son, a senior, turned 18 late in the football season. Now by your rule, hypothetically, had he been held back in grade school, he would have been ineligible to play in his senior year. Doesn't seem right.

 

No he wouldn't. If he would've turned 19 after August 1st of his senior year he's eligible.

 

On a side note, we're talking about a couple of months for a lot of kids. If a team has a 15 year old that's good enough to play with kids 3 years older than him, he'll do fine against kids that are 3 years and a few months older than him...

A soon-to-be 15 year old is in the right class if his birthday is late August or anytime in September. So we're talking about a legit sophomore playing varsity football. On the other hand, you're talking about a kid who is not with his normal class based on his age and should be in college.

 

I don't know what the "right" answer is. Maybe its what we have now. My original point is that based on the current rules, you can have a 19 year old (a young man) vs a 14 almost 15 year old (who is in his right class). That's a huge difference.

 

I understand your point. But my guess is that such rarely happens and if it does happen, the bigger problem is why does a program get to the state that they have to play a 14 yr old?

 

There will never be a perfect situation. What I believe the KHSAA does is try to find the situation that works the best for the most kids. There are lots of kids that are held back even before they even start school because of maturity and other legit reasons. So these kids would be unfairly impacted by changing the current rule. I guess the KHSAA could put in a rule that says any kid that is held back after say the 6th grade ( or some other grade that people think would be appropriate to try and catch the athletic hold backs) is not eligible his/her senior year unless the Board of Control determines that the hold back was for legit, non athletic, reasons, but that is going to open another can of worms. And quite frankly if the principal of the affected school authorizes the hold back and says it is for a non athletic reason (which I can guarantee you will be the case in 100% of the cases since athletic reasons is not a legit reason under the education laws to hold a kid back as I understand it), who is the Board of Control to second guess what the principal signed off on what will be years ago when the case is heard. It will be a disaster and you can trust me on that one.

 

So at the end of the day, while the situation you describe may happen, the alternatives are even more unfair and will create more of a mess in my opinion.

 

So at the end of the day, while the situation you describe may happen, the alternatives are even more unfair and will create more of a mess in my opinion.

 

No argument.

If I remember correctly the age for eligibility is a state law. Only the states general assembly can change the age rule.