I have never bought into the argument that the bigger "older" kids are going to hurt the "younger" smaller kids. Those kids will always struggle to compete against the legit "AA" players. Conversely it is somewhat true that at the HS level it does not matter anymore because size wise you are what you are as 10 - 12 graders beyond the continued muscle development as they mature and weight train with the exception of the late bloomers which are unfortunately penalized in this sport for collegiate recruiting.
I think the kids that get screwed are the really good players on elite teams that cut or bumped down the roster due to the number of holdbacks on the elite teams. I have watched pretty good on age players on top level teams reclassify and become studs / high level commits now that they are playing kids primarily one year younger in those crucial 8th - 10th grade recruiting years for the top 30 D1 programs.
Not a buttercup or snowflake, and my son is a on age public school kid that did commit to a mid level D1 program as a sophomore.
A unfair advantage for one kid is a unfair disadvantage for another kid.
You don't think recruiters take age into consideration? They absolutely do. Do you really think that all of these people are pulling a fast one on top 30 coaches? Your argument is invalid. They look at EVERYTHING! Age, skill level, grades, weight, height, parents' weight and height, sibling' weight and height, etc... they will not be fooled by a holdback.
Both sides have it right, and both sides have it wrong...
Is there something to the fact he's one or two years more physically mature? At the youth level, there probably is something to that. I'd bet, though, that a majority of those kids would be average had they played on-age their whole youth careers, and playing against kids less physically mature makes them look better than they really are. Not all, for sure.
In HS those differences do go by the wayside, because everyone's on a level playing field. Those Boys Latin holdbacks that start don't start because they were held back... they start because they're awesome relative to everyone else on their team this year.
If a HS sophomore (2x holdback) dominates a HS senior (on-age), then whether that kid was held back doesn't really matter... the age factor is out the window.
If that same HS sophomore doesn't play varsity because he couldn't get that much better playing against younger competition during his youth career, then age absolutely matters. Because he probably isn't going to get good enough those next two years to make up the difference.
"Being fooled by a holdback?" Recruiters really don't care about that. Why do you think teams are grouped by graduation year? Recruiters want to know when they can get you, not how old you are.
