|
|
Post by fshamrock on Nov 24, 2015 9:16:00 GMT -6
quick and dirty.. My son is a spring birthday, so when he starts school he will one of the youngest in his class. Most coaches in my neck of the woods consider it a no-brainer to hold your kids back and start school late so they will the older rather than younger than other kids. So I did a highly scientific straw poll with our freshman class and I think it was pretty split down the middle. About half of the kids that we know will be good players were old for their age and about half were young. What has been you guys experience? Are most of your better senior players 18 or 19 years old?
I'm most likely not going to start my boy late, I don't think he has the genetics to be a D1 athlete in any case, plus it just seems kinda redneck to me, plus I read that kids who are old for their grade kick a$$ academically in elementary school but then they struggle in the later grades because they are used to school being easy...but I digress.
thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by joelee on Nov 24, 2015 9:56:31 GMT -6
I would start my kids a late as legally possible. We held back our daughter in first grade.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachphillip on Nov 24, 2015 10:04:44 GMT -6
I remember a study that said that older kids tended to take on leadership roles more easily and did well in school. Younger kids inherently took on subservient roles when on groups with older kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Nov 24, 2015 10:16:04 GMT -6
I would start my kids a late as legally possible. We held back our daughter in first grade. Why? I mean, holding them back before they start is a personal choice that you have to make. Holding them back after they've started if they're able to move on is mystifying to me. |
|
|
|
Post by fshamrock on Nov 24, 2015 10:16:08 GMT -6
I should preface...I didn't mean to be offensive when I said it "seems kind of redneck", that was in poor taste. I'm not here to judge anybody that decides to do what they feel is best for their family, that's none of my business.
Getting back to football though, has anybody else noticed that their better players are older for their grade level?
|
|
|
|
Post by oriolepower on Nov 24, 2015 10:21:31 GMT -6
The easy answer is older kids tend to be better. It is one of the premises in Outliers by Malcom Gladwell. I think there is a lot more to it than athletics.
I have two boys 1 has a July birthday and 1 has an early March birthday. We started the July birthday late and started the March birthday regular start. It has absolutely nothing to do with athletics but my wife and I agree it was one of the best decisions we ever made for our July birthday son and wish we would have made our March birthday son wait a year. It has everything to do with emotional maturity and social maturity. Our son with the July birthday is one of the first kids to drive, our son with the March birthday is one of the last. Other life milestones are the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by hunhdisciple on Nov 24, 2015 10:44:21 GMT -6
If you think of it like college, how valuable can a redshirt year be for a freshman?
We have several kids who are a year behind, and they're our better players. Not exclusively, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by joelee on Nov 24, 2015 10:51:24 GMT -6
My mom started me early and I walked across the stage for my diploma when I was 16. It sucked. My daughter wasn't reading like we wanted and I told my wife we are holding her back. She's a sophomore in honors classes this year. She has a far easier time socially in school than I did. We try to learn from mistakes and not repeat them. She's also been a very aggressive player in basketball and soccer because she is physically not afraid of anyone, and she will be a year older than most classmates when she graduates..
|
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Nov 24, 2015 11:05:18 GMT -6
The easy answer is older kids tend to be better. It is one of the premises in Outliers by Malcom Gladwell. I think there is a lot more to it than athletics. I have two boys 1 has a July birthday and 1 has an early March birthday. We started the July birthday late and started the March birthday regular start. It has absolutely nothing to do with athletics but my wife and I agree it was one of the best decisions we ever made for our July birthday son and wish we would have made our March birthday son wait a year. It has everything to do with emotional maturity and social maturity. Our son with the July birthday is one of the first kids to drive, our son with the March birthday is one of the last. Other life milestones are the same. Maturity is very important in this situation. My wife and I have a 7 year old with a June birthday. We held him back because I have two brothers with June birthdays that went to school early and they both dropped out of high school before the end of their 10th grade year because both were pretty immature at the time. My birthday was in May and my wife's is in August and we both went to school early and graduated with honors so it's definitely not an exact science, but we still wanted to play it safe with our son and start him late because of the maturity issues.
So far he is doing really well academically, which is expected when you have two teachers as parents. We have seen though a solid progression in his ability to interact socially. When he first went to Pre-K, he almost refused to stay. When we would leave he would hide under his desk for the first few hours or so of school. During kindergarten (round 1) he was extremely shy so much so that during his Christmas program he put his head in his shirt the whole entire show. He wouldn't talk to others or the teacher at all during class but at least he wasn't hiding under his desk anymore after we dropped him off. During kindergarten (round 2) he was very active in the classroom. I was impressed because at their school assembly he lead the pledge of allegiance in front of the whole crowd. This year he is in 1st grade and is much better socially. I think by giving him a year to get ahead academically it allowed him to better interact socially because he didn't have to struggle with both the academics and the social interactions.
We are very glad we held him back. Sports had absolutely zero bearing on our decision with our son, but I have friends who started their children late so that they would be more mature physically when they got to high school to play sports. Our son will probably play sports, but our focus is developing him to be a caring and hard working person first so that is why we made our decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by PSS on Nov 24, 2015 14:13:49 GMT -6
So far he is doing really well academically, which is expected when you have two teachers as parents. We have seen though a solid progression in his ability to interact socially. When he first went to Pre-K, he almost refused to stay. When we would leave he would hide under his desk for the first few hours or so of school. During kindergarten (round 1) he was extremely shy so much so that during his Christmas program he put his head in his shirt the whole entire show. He wouldn't talk to others or the teacher at all during class but at least he wasn't hiding under his desk anymore after we dropped him off. During kindergarten (round 2) he was very active in the classroom. I was impressed because at their school assembly he lead the pledge of allegiance in front of the whole crowd. This year he is in 1st grade and is much better socially. I think by giving him a year to get ahead academically it allowed him to better interact socially because he didn't have to struggle with both the academics and the social interactions.
We are very glad we held him back. Sports had absolutely zero bearing on our decision with our son, but I have friends who started their children late so that they would be more mature physically when they got to high school to play sports. Our son will probably play sports, but our focus is developing him to be a caring and hard working person first so that is why we made our decision.
Very much like the situation my wife and I went through with our son. His birthday is in August. We held him back and he had many of the same issues early on that you describe. He's a Junior in HS now. Does well in classes, handles adversity very well, and is just now starting to mature physically (6'1, 225). |
|
|
|
Post by coachbdud on Nov 24, 2015 15:26:42 GMT -6
if i had a kid, i would just start them late when they begin kindergarten
i think there are some benefits to doing this athletically, academically, and socially, that is just my opinion, for my hypothetical kid
i have seen a lot of players who are "young for their grade" be decent HS players but REALLY blossom in college because they physically develop so much more after high school.
i had a LB who played his whole senior year at 16, turned 17 the last week of the season
he took a year off when he went to a local JC (grey shirted)
hit the weights hard, played there... got HUGE and got a free college education from there
he is one of several players and friends i have known who graduated young, and who's bodies just changed a lot when they got to age 18-19
|
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Nov 24, 2015 15:29:13 GMT -6
My mom started me early and I walked across the stage for my diploma when I was 16. It sucked. My daughter wasn't reading like we wanted and I told my wife we are holding her back. She's a sophomore in honors classes this year. She has a far easier time socially in school than I did. We try to learn from mistakes and not repeat them. She's also been a very aggressive player in basketball and soccer because she is physically not afraid of anyone, and she will be a year older than most classmates when she graduates.. Not trying to bust your ass, but seriously interested- With that background, why did you start her then? |
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Nov 24, 2015 15:34:38 GMT -6
if i had a kid, i would just start them late when they begin kindergarten i think there are some benefits to doing this athletically, academically, and socially, that is just my opinion, for my hypothetical kid i have seen a lot of players who are "young for their grade" be decent HS players but REALLY blossom in college because they physically develop so much more after high school. i had a LB who played his whole senior year at 16, turned 17 the last week of the season he took a year off when he went to a local JC (grey shirted) hit the weights hard, played there... got HUGE and got a free college education from there he is one of several players and friends i have known who graduated young, and who's bodies just changed a lot when they got to age 18-19 We did kindergarten twice instead of preschool twice because it was free and at the school my wife taught at. Pre-k was 5000$ tuition. We knew we wanted our son to start kindergarten late we could save money doing it this way. I would recommend this approach if starting late and on a budget. |
|
|
|
Post by breakerdog on Nov 26, 2015 16:38:38 GMT -6
LinkLink
It's called Red Shirting, when talking about kindergarten age kids. I have a 7 and 6 year old, just went through this thought process with my wife and family. The answer, as always, is it depends. The big question that we had with our kids, is what are we going to do with them while we hold them back? Both our kids were done with pre-school / kindergarten and were in the upper percentiles of development (both socially and academically) in comparison to their same age class mates. We didn't think it was healthy to make them repeat a step that they had already kicked butt on. Most of my Googling came up with no real benefits to this, other than for kids who are behind in development at the younger age groups. Any benefits from Red Shirting tended to dissappear as years went on and were all but gone by year 5-6. I am not an educator and don't pretend that a few hours on Google replaces actual research, but I made the best decision I could for my family. I also felt that if later on in years there were some developmental issues with my kids, whether it be social, athletic or academic, we would look for solutions down the road. Raising kids isn't a one decision and done kind of thing. Going to have to coach em up for a few years yet. Our decision is what was best for our family and doesn't mean that will be the best for yours. Good luck.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2015 17:13:01 GMT -6
If you look solely at athletics, it's a no brained that it tends to be better to get them a late start. It also benefits them immensely in earlier grades and teaches them to expect to be in a leadership role in other activities.
However, there is some legit educational research that says it can be harmful. That kid will also hit puberty before his or her classmates, will be old enough to work, and will be going through that "boundary testing" phase before the other kids, too, which can cause problems.
There was also the aforementioned issue with school coming so easy in the earlier grades because the kid's in a higher developmental stage than his or her peers.
In a few studies, kids who were older than their peers were found to slightly have more discipline problems in school, be more likely to experiment with drugs and alcohol, and be more likely to have sex, get pregnant, and drop out.
Now, not all of those studies made the distinction between kids who were given a late start vs kids who were held back for academic or discipline problems, but it was there and it was statistically significant.
Personally, with a boy, I'd strongly consider putting him in late if possible, but with a girl I'd rather she start with her peers. I had a late birthday (May) and turned 17 about 3 months before my senior season started. I was big for my age and was decent, but it wasn't until after I graduated and got in a good weight program that I really developed physically. If I could have had that body on the HS football field and that level of maturity in the classroom a year earlier, I would have been much better off.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2015 17:30:17 GMT -6
Back to the original topic, ask yourself this:
Would you rather go out and play a game with a bunch of seniors and some juniors or a bunch of juniors and sophomores with a few seniors?
|
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Nov 26, 2015 17:40:36 GMT -6
All things equal older players. We've all had players who as seniors stepped up for no other reason than the end is near.
I think it's best to wait and start boys as late as legally possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by joelee on Nov 27, 2015 7:23:22 GMT -6
My mom started me early and I walked across the stage for my diploma when I was 16. It sucked. My daughter wasn't reading like we wanted and I told my wife we are holding her back. She's a sophomore in honors classes this year. She has a far easier time socially in school than I did. We try to learn from mistakes and not repeat them. She's also been a very aggressive player in basketball and soccer because she is physically not afraid of anyone, and she will be a year older than most classmates when she graduates.. Not trying to bust your ass, but seriously interested- With that background, why did you start her then? Simply couldn't get my wife on board at first. Happy wife = happy life. |
|
|
|
Post by Coach Bennett on Nov 27, 2015 8:46:31 GMT -6
Our son is an August bday and we will likely be red shirting him. He's not going to be a D1 athlete.
I would much rather have him head off to college (or the world) at 19 than 18.
Selfishly, it also keeps him in the house for another year.
|
|
|
|
Post by hsrose on Nov 27, 2015 10:37:09 GMT -6
I would strongly advocate that boys be started as late as possible.
My son was a larger boy even at a very young age and so he was always much bigger than the other boys in his age group. We didn't want him to be that much bigger than the kids in his class the following year so we started him early I guess. He was a mid-September baby so he started Kindergarten at 4 and turned 5 within a couple of weeks. Looking back that was a very poor decision on our part, we let the physical side get in the way of the mental side. We thought it would be ok, didn't really consider the emotional growth/maturity factors.
He started the first 3 varsity games at QB his senior year at 16. He could handle it athletically but academically he was late. He always had academic problems his first semester and did better the second, but by that time the damage was done. He ended up hating academics and school because he always struggled the start of each year and then spent the last half trying to dig out of the hole he made so he never got anywhere. Because of his grades he wasn't recruited so he went to a local JC where he grey-shirted, he realized he needed that 5th year of high school.
I'm not advocating this for athletics, but for academics and emotional growth in general. I've seen a lot of younger players be able to handle the sport side of things but not the emotional and/or academic and/or off-field. My daughters were just fine with maturity and academics (Jan & Feb babies) so I have no position on when you should start girls. But boys, start them as late as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 27, 2015 10:43:47 GMT -6
Someone mentioned Gladwell and "Outliers" in a post above, and Gladwell does present a very logical (but not scientifically based, or scientifically backed) theory. For those who aren't familiar, basically Gladwell argues that children who are "older" for their age groups in youth sports (due to the cut off dates) have a better chance of standing out because they almost 20% older than their contemporaries. Those that stand out get more attention and "better" coaching. They make the all-star teams, thus increasing their exposure to better competition and coaching. This starts an achievement gap (to use an educational term) cycle that becomes evident on a macro level when you are talking about a very large pool of athletes. He supports his theory with data from Canadian national hockey teams.
On a micro level, I don't think you can look at a single team and see clear evidence of a benefit. That said, several of Louisiana's top programs had 8+ grades (a grade between 8th and 9th) until it was banned by the rules.
Regarding the original question, I think this is the wrong way to look at it. On a micro level (your own family, one team etc) the question isn't whether older kids make better players, BUT rather will individual players be better if they are older than they are if they are younger. ON that basis..I think the answer is pretty much a "duh".
On a side note, I think it is interesting that so many people advocate holding back or starting late yet no one ever seems to talk about examining alternative cut off date methods, or how such dates are used.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2015 14:12:01 GMT -6
I will say that, regarding individual programs, I can point to some teams that have had clear benefits from a lot of kids getting later starts. That's enough of a macro level for it to show up.
There's an inner city school in the Nashville area that's fed by housing projects. In the past, a lot of their kids were old for their grade due to failing after academic or discipline problems. By the time they got to HS, they had some good genetics combined with that extra year of physical maturity and were men among boys out there by the time they were juniors and seniors. They have won state titles in the past and sent a lot of kids to D1 schools, but it's a very up and down program. Coaches get burned out and the school is not a priority to the district.
Across the state line from me in Virginia is one of the most successful small school programs in the state. They have a good tradition, but their talent pool is nothing remarkable: a bunch of white country kids who buy in and lift, basically. However, for decades they would encourage parents to hold their promising young athletes back in the earlier grades so they'd be a year more mature in football. During this time they had a 45 year run where they put back to back coaches in the state HOF, won 75% of their games with 4 state titles, and were expected to go about 3+ rounds deep every year. I forget how many times they made it to the state semis or finals.
Assistant coaches from there have left to come across to our side of the line and take higher paying jobs as HCs and run things the same, but none have been successful, AFAIK, because our state was always tougher on age limits and things. A few years back the state of Virginia changed their eligibility rules to discourage the "red shirt 8th graders" this program relied on and it's only now working its way through the system. They finished up the past year at 3-7.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 27, 2015 14:40:00 GMT -6
I will say that, regarding individual programs, I can point to some teams that have had clear benefits from a lot of kids getting later starts. That's enough of a macro level for it to show up. There's an inner city school in the Nashville area that's fed by housing projects. In the past, a lot of their kids were old for their grade due to failing after academic or discipline problems. By the time they got to HS, they had some good genetics combined with that extra year of physical maturity and were men among boys out there by the time they were juniors and seniors. They have won state titles in the past and sent a lot of kids to D1 schools, but it's a very up and down program. Coaches get burned out and the school is not a priority to the district. Across the state line from me in Virginia is one of the most successful small school programs in the state. They have a good tradition, but their talent pool is nothing remarkable: a bunch of white country kids who buy in and lift, basically. However, for decades they would encourage parents to hold their promising young athletes back in the earlier grades so they'd be a year more mature in football. During this time they had a 45 year run where they put back to back coaches in the state HOF, won 75% of their games with 4 state titles, and were expected to go about 3+ rounds deep every year. I forget how many times they made it to the state semis or finals. Assistant coaches from there have left to come across to our side of the line and take higher paying jobs as HCs and run things the same, but none have been successful, AFAIK, because our state was always tougher on age limits and things. A few years back the state of Virginia changed their eligibility rules to discourage the "red shirt 8th graders" this program relied on and it's only now working its way through the system. They finished up the past year at 3-7. I would say that PROGRAMs yes. But not individual teams (as in the 2015-2016 team). Sure some teams will benefit, but others won't really see that much from a few individual holdbacks for whatever reason. Now, a systematic holdback system definitely provides advantages to programs (and subsequently, the individual teams that comprise that program) |
|
