My only problem with sports holdbacks (in public schools) is the taxpayers footing the bill so little Johnny might have a better high school sports career but I don't see anything being done about it any time soon.

 

Taxpayers would "foot the bill" regardless of his age/grade status. It's not like he won't attend school still??? Not sure what argument is trying to be proposed.

Frankly, I thought that once kids got to high school that we'd not have to revisit this ad nauseum. I was obviously wrong. As for those of you who think that it's wrong to hold kids back, I respect your opinion and hope that it works out for you and yours. However, I don't know one person, not a single one, who has held their child back that regrets the decision. And I'll take it a step further, I don't know one child who has been held back who regrets it. Not a single one.

Come on Slemac, I guess I can give you a little slack. You guys are now 1 for 8. Get back to me at week 12 or so. And the answer is no we can't avoid this discussion because there will always be those like Bandit that think that there's something wrong with holdbacks. I do not. Never the 'tween shall meet.

 

The opportunites are so few, I have to take them when they come. Sorry!

My only problem with sports holdbacks (in public schools) is the taxpayers footing the bill so little Johnny might have a better high school sports career but I don't see anything being done about it any time soon.

So, what about kids who can't hack it academically and have to repeat a grade? They gonna be lumped in too, or only sports holdbacks? Or what about kids who simply started school too early and were simply immature and needed another year in the parents home before facing the world on their own? Where do they stand?

I think this is a carryover topic from the North Oldham thread regarding Darryl Hicks age so let me clarify some things.

 

Darryl's birthday is in either July or August and he turned 15. One year holdback, not two as suggested in the other thread.

 

Now, how many of the top Freshman players will be 15 between Sept 1st and Nov 1st????? A lot!!

 

The kid has what, a four-five month advantage? Big deal.

Taxpayers would "foot the bill" regardless of his age/grade status. It's not like he won't attend school still??? Not sure what argument is trying to be proposed.

 

Sorry I didn't make myself clear. I have known of people who started their kids in Kindergarten at age 5 knowing full well that they would have them repeat a grade in the early years for the sole purposes of sports. They go ahead and start the kid so they won't have to pay daycare. Those students get an extra year of school at the taxpayers expense. I think it is fine to hold a kid out of school if the parents think it is best and I certainly don't have a problem with the the student who repeats a grade for academic or maturity issues. It just bothers me to see kids go to school an extra year just for sports. Just my opinion.

Sorry I didn't make myself clear. I have known of people who started their kids in Kindergarten at age 5 knowing full well that they would have them repeat a grade in the early years for the sole purposes of sports. They go ahead and start the kid so they won't have to pay daycare. Those students get an extra year of school at the taxpayers expense. I think it is fine to hold a kid out of school if the parents think it is best and I certainly don't have a problem with the the student who repeats a grade for academic or maturity issues. It just bothers me to see kids go to school an extra year just for sports. Just my opinion.

 

I have to agree, if it is because they need to be held back academically, then I have no problem "footing the bill" but if it is just cause the parents want them to have an advantage on the court, then why make the taxpayers pay? As a taxpayer, i feel I pay for enough waste as it is.

 

Plus, too, how much satisfaction can a person get knowing their 16 year old freshman beat a 14 year old freshman?

I have to agree, if it is because they need to be held back academically, then I have no problem "footing the bill" but if it is just cause the parents want them to have an advantage on the court, then why make the taxpayers pay? As a taxpayer, i feel I pay for enough waste as it is.

 

Plus, too, how much satisfaction can a person get knowing their 16 year old freshman beat a 14 year old freshman?

So, what about the 16 year old freshman being able physically to take the pounding of bigger kids that are juniors and seniors and the 14 year old freshman who can't? Now the 14 year old freshman has to wait until he's a junior, for argument's sake, before he's physically ready. Make's alot of sense to me.:idunno:

I don't think too many parents are concerned about how well their kids play against other freshmen, I think they are looking at giving the kid another year to play at the end of those four years instead of at the beginning. I think there is a much better chance they will get some notice from college's if they get that extra year beyond what would have been their senior year.

If it means a better chance for your kid to play college sports then I completely support holding back. Age doesn't make any difference in college and generally I don't see how an extra year of maturity could hurt either.

I love getting stuff started! If any of you would do research, it is a proven fact that boys mature later than girls (physically, mentally, and emotionally). So why do we ask them to be the same age when they graduate 12th grade. IF we know these things then why not let the boys mature in all areas before we send them to college. Do what is best for your kid, that is the only thing any parent should worry about!

Fourteen year old freshman playing against other fourteen year old freshman- not 15 or 16 year old kids that should be sophomores or juniors (depending) based on their age- not classification.

 

That's what makes AAU such a joke. The uptick in holdbacks is now moved into high school sports. Everyone knows which kids are holdbacks/late starters- whichever term you prefer. They carry that stigma with them just so they can 'dominate' against younger competitors.

Parent's don't always hold their child back to have advantage over younger children. I know of two northern ky boys held back , one started JV and played several varsity minutes at 13 years old(7th grade) the other was only 14(eigth grade) doing the same thing at another high school. I don't see where either of these boys have an advantage. Most holdbacks end up playing up in sports, not against boys there own age. If a parent chooses to hold a child back for something other than academics such as sports, they probably are pretty advanced to begin with. Other than AAU I haven't seen many holdbacks playing their own age group in highschool. You have middle school kids playing at a JV and Varsity level, there is no advantage there.

Honestly, I can't believe this thread has this many hits and posts. Is this even an issue, and if so, why?

 

I've NEVER heard a high school coach complain becasue an opposing player is a "holdback". I've NEVER heard a college coach say they weren't interested in a kid, because he's "taking advantage of kids younger than him."

 

The KHSAA has clear cut, no questions asked age requirements. If a kid enters high school eligible to be a four-year athlete via these requirements, then that's the end of the story.

I love getting stuff started! If any of you would do research, it is a proven fact that boys mature later than girls (physically, mentally, and emotionally). So why do we ask them to be the same age when they graduate 12th grade. IF we know these things then why not let the boys mature in all areas before we send them to college. Do what is best for your kid, that is the only thing any parent should worry about!

 

As opposed to those unproven facts? :confused: :thumb:

I love getting stuff started! If any of you would do research, it is a proven fact that boys mature later than girls (physically, mentally, and emotionally). So why do we ask them to be the same age when they graduate 12th grade. IF we know these things then why not let the boys mature in all areas before we send them to college. Do what is best for your kid, that is the only thing any parent should worry about![/QUOTE]

 

You are so correct!

 

It was fun watching the top boy runners on my older son's middle school cross country team try in vain to keep up with the top girls.

 

Then they all went to HS. :lol:

 

Now the top girls from that team are TWO MINUTES SLOWER than the top boys from that team... It was such a dramatic change...

 

But your last sentence sums it all up: I'm going to do what's best for MY KID, because they are who I'm responsible for!! The KHSAA will determine eligibility, and they have set rules.

 

(No, I haven't held my kids back, for those wondering! The thought never even occurred to me...)

This discussion takes place in the GD 3 to 4 times a year in the AAU threads about grade exceptions, yada, yada. I agree with Clyde. A first year high schooler is just that. So, is there such thing as a false freshman? You can't redshirt in high school, so why the confusion? My guess is a parent crying because a kid was held back some time ago and theirs wasn't. Sounds like different sets of plans by the parents.

 

Doesn't that hinder the games outcome in most cases?:puke: