Forums20
Topics3,813
Posts400,731
Members2,638
|
Most Online91,692 36 minutes ago
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
While this kid is clearly talented, your example proves the point of "reclassifying" - a "normal" 7th grader born in June would be 12 yrs old in the middle of the 7th grade, but in your example, says he is 13 - he should be in 8th grade, not 7th
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
My son is a summer birthday. He was young for his grade through 9th grade. He was a very good athlete in multiple sports, but both young and a late bloomer. He went from one of the biggest kids in his grade through middle school to basically average size by the end of 8th grade, but not even starting puberty. While still a very good athlete, older kids and early bloomers had a clear advantage on him which he had to deal with. After 9th grade, he transferred to private school and repeated. Despite repeating, he was nowhere near the oldest in his class and probably even a little below the average age (even for non-athletes). Most of these kids were held back in pre-school..... His school also played in a league were 20 year olds were permitted and not uncommon. So he still had to deal with older kids and early bloomers. By the end of sophomore year (post repeat) the early bloomers and older kids no longer had an advantage and he had grown into a very large athletic teenager. I would laugh when people on the summer circuit would say, "oh he repeated" when he was a sophomore. The kid simply grew into a huge athlete for any age who could run like the wind.. By the time he was a junior, you couldn't help but notice him in any varsity football or lacrosse game. At the start of his senior year he was committed to a top 10 lacrosse program and had D1 scholarship offers for football. Repeating had nothing to do with it. He ended up sticking with his lacrosse commitment and gained some notoriety along the way. And yes, when he went to college, almost all of the freshmen recruits were 19 year olds. In addition, numerous "seniors" / 5th years were 23. Never heard my son ever complain about having to play against older or more mature kids when he was younger - he actually played up when he could - I also never heard him complain about playing with or against kids who were 4 years older than him in high school or college. He actually repeated for academic reasons when he transferred after 9th grade and we (his parents) certainly didn't have him pegged as a D1 athlete in any sport at that time.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
My son is a summer birthday. He was young for his grade through 9th grade. He was a very good athlete in multiple sports, but both young and a late bloomer. He went from one of the biggest kids in his grade through middle school to basically average size by the end of 8th grade, but not even starting puberty. While still a very good athlete, older kids and early bloomers had a clear advantage on him which he had to deal with. After 9th grade, he transferred to private school and repeated. Despite repeating, he was nowhere near the oldest in his class and probably even a little below the average age (even for non-athletes). Most of these kids were held back in pre-school..... His school also played in a league were 20 year olds were permitted and not uncommon. So he still had to deal with older kids and early bloomers. By the end of sophomore year (post repeat) the early bloomers and older kids no longer had an advantage and he had grown into a very large athletic teenager. I would laugh when people on the summer circuit would say, "oh he repeated" when he was a sophomore. The kid simply grew into a huge athlete for any age who could run like the wind.. By the time he was a junior, you couldn't help but notice him in any varsity football or lacrosse game. At the start of his senior year he was committed to a top 10 lacrosse program and had D1 scholarship offers for football. Repeating had nothing to do with it. He ended up sticking with his lacrosse commitment and gained some notoriety along the way. And yes, when he went to college, almost all of the freshmen recruits were 19 year olds. In addition, numerous "seniors" / 5th years were 23. Never heard my son ever complain about having to play against older or more mature kids when he was younger - he actually played up when he could - I also never heard him complain about playing with or against kids who were 4 years older than him in high school or college. He actually repeated for academic reasons when he transferred after 9th grade and we (his parents) certainly didn't have him pegged as a D1 athlete in any sport at that time.
That's all well and good. The biggest mistake any ONE person can do is make the assumption that "my case is typical". It worked out for you and your son, but that doesn't mean that it will for others, and maybe not for the broad majority. You say he was held back for academic reasons - that's the (only) way it should ever happen! The fact of the matter is that pre-HS, when it matters greatly, all youth sports should be age-based, and whether you held back early (grade school) or not, the 'playing field' for age-based play is equal, no matter what. Standouts can always play up, but it's their decision. The current state of affairs in lax is that the decision to play up is forced upon everyone by virtue of the fact that grade-based play essentially allows older kids to play down, age-wise, at THEIR choice.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
All this juggling for lacrosse? Whatever floats your boat...
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
All this juggling for lacrosse? Whatever floats your boat... Couldn't agree more. Dead end sport. get the priorities straight mom and dad. Geesh
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I cant understand how you don't get it. You changed out of the norm, to give your child an ADVANTAGE. You CHEATED; it simply doesn't matter if others cheated. I think it is funny, to me it sounds like you think you are creating an even playing field.
Its simple, it didn't work for your child on age, whether academically or athletically, so you changed the game. It doesn't have to be illeagal to be cheating.
I wish I had the balls not to care enough and simply hold back my children. Maybe im just jealous. I am quite sure they would be better off, both academically and athletically, if i did and by the way they do quite well in each being on age (also summer birthdays).
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Major issue in the sport and will continue to be
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Major issue in the sport and will continue to be Similar issues existed in other youth sports - they all realized this and went to age-based play. That's the kicker: lacrosse had all of that previous history to draw upon, yet they failed to be proactive and address it. The problem is with USL - they are not the governing body they claim to be, and the sport is less than what it could be as a result.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
My son is a summer birthday. He was young for his grade through 9th grade. He was a very good athlete in multiple sports, but both young and a late bloomer. He went from one of the biggest kids in his grade through middle school to basically average size by the end of 8th grade, but not even starting puberty. While still a very good athlete, older kids and early bloomers had a clear advantage on him which he had to deal with. After 9th grade, he transferred to private school and repeated. Despite repeating, he was nowhere near the oldest in his class and probably even a little below the average age (even for non-athletes). Most of these kids were held back in pre-school..... His school also played in a league were 20 year olds were permitted and not uncommon. So he still had to deal with older kids and early bloomers. By the end of sophomore year (post repeat) the early bloomers and older kids no longer had an advantage and he had grown into a very large athletic teenager. I would laugh when people on the summer circuit would say, "oh he repeated" when he was a sophomore. The kid simply grew into a huge athlete for any age who could run like the wind.. By the time he was a junior, you couldn't help but notice him in any varsity football or lacrosse game. At the start of his senior year he was committed to a top 10 lacrosse program and had D1 scholarship offers for football. Repeating had nothing to do with it. He ended up sticking with his lacrosse commitment and gained some notoriety along the way. And yes, when he went to college, almost all of the freshmen recruits were 19 year olds. In addition, numerous "seniors" / 5th years were 23. Never heard my son ever complain about having to play against older or more mature kids when he was younger - he actually played up when he could - I also never heard him complain about playing with or against kids who were 4 years older than him in high school or college. He actually repeated for academic reasons when he transferred after 9th grade and we (his parents) certainly didn't have him pegged as a D1 athlete in any sport at that time.
This post is a joke. Your kid committed to a top 10 lacrosse program and had D1 scholarship offers? If true, than do you realize how special of an athlete your kid is? Do you really think his experiences were the same as every other kid? Using your kid's experience as evidence of how youth sports should be organized is kind of like pointing to a lottery winner and saying "look, this proves that buying lottery tickets is the best investment strategy for retirement." The large majority of kids (pre-HS aged) have no ability to "deal with", to use your words, older kids. If the owners of these clubs and tournaments (mostly the same people) opened their eyes and realized this simple concept, they would see their participation numbers and profits grow. There can always be AAA teams for the super athletes, as well as the ability to play up if that is the choice made by the family and the coaches. Everyone can have their cake and eat it too. The problem is that too many of the owners benefit financially by the winning done by their older holdbacks, and fear that when the playing field is evened in an age-based system, they will just become just another club. Again, if these stunads opened their eyes they would see that they could emulate hockey's Tier I system and utilize charters to limit entry and monopolize it just like they do now, only they will have more paying customers at Tier II, as more average athletes have a place to compete. Heck, they have it already with NLF.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
My son is a summer birthday. He was young for his grade through 9th grade. He was a very good athlete in multiple sports, but both young and a late bloomer. He went from one of the biggest kids in his grade through middle school to basically average size by the end of 8th grade, but not even starting puberty. While still a very good athlete, older kids and early bloomers had a clear advantage on him which he had to deal with. After 9th grade, he transferred to private school and repeated. Despite repeating, he was nowhere near the oldest in his class and probably even a little below the average age (even for non-athletes). Most of these kids were held back in pre-school..... His school also played in a league were 20 year olds were permitted and not uncommon. So he still had to deal with older kids and early bloomers. By the end of sophomore year (post repeat) the early bloomers and older kids no longer had an advantage and he had grown into a very large athletic teenager. I would laugh when people on the summer circuit would say, "oh he repeated" when he was a sophomore. The kid simply grew into a huge athlete for any age who could run like the wind.. By the time he was a junior, you couldn't help but notice him in any varsity football or lacrosse game. At the start of his senior year he was committed to a top 10 lacrosse program and had D1 scholarship offers for football. Repeating had nothing to do with it. He ended up sticking with his lacrosse commitment and gained some notoriety along the way. And yes, when he went to college, almost all of the freshmen recruits were 19 year olds. In addition, numerous "seniors" / 5th years were 23. Never heard my son ever complain about having to play against older or more mature kids when he was younger - he actually played up when he could - I also never heard him complain about playing with or against kids who were 4 years older than him in high school or college. He actually repeated for academic reasons when he transferred after 9th grade and we (his parents) certainly didn't have him pegged as a D1 athlete in any sport at that time.
This post is a joke. Your kid committed to a top 10 lacrosse program and had D1 scholarship offers? If true, than do you realize how special of an athlete your kid is? Do you really think his experiences were the same as every other kid? Using your kid's experience as evidence of how youth sports should be organized is kind of like pointing to a lottery winner and saying "look, this proves that buying lottery tickets is the best investment strategy for retirement." The large majority of kids (pre-HS aged) have no ability to "deal with", to use your words, older kids. If the owners of these clubs and tournaments (mostly the same people) opened their eyes and realized this simple concept, they would see their participation numbers and profits grow. There can always be AAA teams for the super athletes, as well as the ability to play up if that is the choice made by the family and the coaches. Everyone can have their cake and eat it too. The problem is that too many of the owners benefit financially by the winning done by their older holdbacks, and fear that when the playing field is evened in an age-based system, they will just become just another club. Again, if these stunads opened their eyes they would see that they could emulate hockey's Tier I system and utilize charters to limit entry and monopolize it just like they do now, only they will have more paying customers at Tier II, as more average athletes have a place to compete. Heck, they have it already with NLF. Bingo!
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
My son is a summer birthday. He was young for his grade through 9th grade. He was a very good athlete in multiple sports, but both young and a late bloomer. He went from one of the biggest kids in his grade through middle school to basically average size by the end of 8th grade, but not even starting puberty. While still a very good athlete, older kids and early bloomers had a clear advantage on him which he had to deal with. After 9th grade, he transferred to private school and repeated. Despite repeating, he was nowhere near the oldest in his class and probably even a little below the average age (even for non-athletes). Most of these kids were held back in pre-school..... His school also played in a league were 20 year olds were permitted and not uncommon. So he still had to deal with older kids and early bloomers. By the end of sophomore year (post repeat) the early bloomers and older kids no longer had an advantage and he had grown into a very large athletic teenager. I would laugh when people on the summer circuit would say, "oh he repeated" when he was a sophomore. The kid simply grew into a huge athlete for any age who could run like the wind.. By the time he was a junior, you couldn't help but notice him in any varsity football or lacrosse game. At the start of his senior year he was committed to a top 10 lacrosse program and had D1 scholarship offers for football. Repeating had nothing to do with it. He ended up sticking with his lacrosse commitment and gained some notoriety along the way. And yes, when he went to college, almost all of the freshmen recruits were 19 year olds. In addition, numerous "seniors" / 5th years were 23. Never heard my son ever complain about having to play against older or more mature kids when he was younger - he actually played up when he could - I also never heard him complain about playing with or against kids who were 4 years older than him in high school or college. He actually repeated for academic reasons when he transferred after 9th grade and we (his parents) certainly didn't have him pegged as a D1 athlete in any sport at that time.
All fine and good. When other parents said he repeated, they were right. So why the laughter?? Once you repeated you became the norm or even younger for the private school players. That in itself reinforces all that is wrong with lacrosse and especially as it relates to YOUTH lacrosse. Private school teams and players are 1-2 years older than majority of public school teams and players. Under Armour HS teams have become a joke for many area's with its grade based system. Last year Ty Xanders even said something had to be done about it as it was so obvious of the effects of holdbacks/prefirsts/reclassed going against proper age for grade players
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Does anyone look at the long term for the reclassed kids? Two I know of personally who were dominating studs have peaked. One is a sophomore who was a Freshman Phenom, the other is freshman at Top D1 program. Parents are short cited in their thinking. Give me the late developer any day of the week and he will have a longer “life span”
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Does anyone look at the long term for the reclassed kids? Two I know of personally who were dominating studs have peaked. One is a sophomore who was a Freshman Phenom, the other is freshman at Top D1 program. Parents are short cited in their thinking. Give me the late developer any day of the week and he will have a longer “life span” I dont know of any overall study. But many players in NCAA Div 1 are 19 entering their freshman year of lacrosse. Look at any NCAA lacrosse roster and many are littered with private school holdbacks. Guterding ( Private HS) of Duke had his 24th Birthday yesterday according to TV. That is a holdback age. Many MIAA players are 19 going into first year of college. I dont have an exact number, but if it holds true to my own interactions with MIAA players, its over 50% Now there may be more that have fallen to wayside, but for many, it works.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Does anyone look at the long term for the reclassed kids? Two I know of personally who were dominating studs have peaked. One is a sophomore who was a Freshman Phenom, the other is freshman at Top D1 program. Parents are short cited in their thinking. Give me the late developer any day of the week and he will have a longer “life span” I dont know of any overall study. But many players in NCAA Div 1 are 19 entering their freshman year of lacrosse. Look at any NCAA lacrosse roster and many are littered with private school holdbacks. Guterding ( Private HS) of Duke had his 24th Birthday yesterday according to TV. That is a holdback age. Many MIAA players are 19 going into first year of college. I dont have an exact number, but if it holds true to my own interactions with MIAA players, its over 50% Now there may be more that have fallen to wayside, but for many, it works. It was actually his 23rd birthday according to the broadcast. You got that part wrong.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Does anyone look at the long term for the reclassed kids? Two I know of personally who were dominating studs have peaked. One is a sophomore who was a Freshman Phenom, the other is freshman at Top D1 program. Parents are short cited in their thinking. Give me the late developer any day of the week and he will have a longer “life span” I dont know of any overall study. But many players in NCAA Div 1 are 19 entering their freshman year of lacrosse. Look at any NCAA lacrosse roster and many are littered with private school holdbacks. Guterding ( Private HS) of Duke had his 24th Birthday yesterday according to TV. That is a holdback age. Many MIAA players are 19 going into first year of college. I dont have an exact number, but if it holds true to my own interactions with MIAA players, its over 50% Now there may be more that have fallen to wayside, but for many, it works. It was actually his 23rd birthday according to the broadcast. You got that part wrong. I know if I asked my 7th grader if he wanted to be left back for lacrosse, oops, i forgot, the politically correct phrase "hold-back" he would look at me as if I were crazy. Different strokes for different folks.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I’m not talking the borderline birthdays. I’m talking about reclassification. Guterding did a PG year. I don’t have any problems with that after HS. But 7/8th grade is insane. The guys I know who did it in 8th grade have peaked in HS and are going nowhere they expected in college.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Does anyone look at the long term for the reclassed kids? Two I know of personally who were dominating studs have peaked. One is a sophomore who was a Freshman Phenom, the other is freshman at Top D1 program. Parents are short cited in their thinking. Give me the late developer any day of the week and he will have a longer “life span” I dont know of any overall study. But many players in NCAA Div 1 are 19 entering their freshman year of lacrosse. Look at any NCAA lacrosse roster and many are littered with private school holdbacks. Guterding ( Private HS) of Duke had his 24th Birthday yesterday according to TV. That is a holdback age. Many MIAA players are 19 going into first year of college. I dont have an exact number, but if it holds true to my own interactions with MIAA players, its over 50% Now there may be more that have fallen to wayside, but for many, it works. It was actually his 23rd birthday according to the broadcast. You got that part wrong. I know if I asked my 7th grader if he wanted to be left back for lacrosse, oops, i forgot, the politically correct phrase "hold-back" he would look at me as if I were crazy. Different strokes for different folks. Guterding did PG before Duke. Sometimes that is a prereq for admission to highly selective school. Guy will end up has 3X time all-american, 300+ points & degree from Duke University. You guys may want to pick a different example for whatever point you're making.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I, for one, have no problem with a family holding a kid back (or reclassing him if that is the proper word) so that he can be in whatever grade they want the kid to be in. It just should be true that in youth lacrosse, these kids should play vs kids their same age. So if I have a 2005 kid, I want him to play against 2005 kids (or use a Sept 1-Aug 30 year). I don't care if his opponents are in 7th grade, 9th grade, 5th grade, or no grade at all. With regard to school lacrosse (Middle School Teams, JV, Varsity), there is a fair amount of consistency within leagues, conferences, ect. My kids are suburban NY public school kids. There are very few extreme hold backs in the public schools. The extreme holdbacks are mostly at the prep school, catholic schools, ect. The publics and the privates largely don't compete against each other except for non-league games that are voluntarily scheduled.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I, for one, have no problem with a family holding a kid back (or reclassing him if that is the proper word) so that he can be in whatever grade they want the kid to be in. It just should be true that in youth lacrosse, these kids should play vs kids their same age. So if I have a 2005 kid, I want him to play against 2005 kids (or use a Sept 1-Aug 30 year). I don't care if his opponents are in 7th grade, 9th grade, 5th grade, or no grade at all. With regard to school lacrosse (Middle School Teams, JV, Varsity), there is a fair amount of consistency within leagues, conferences, ect. My kids are suburban NY public school kids. There are very few extreme hold backs in the public schools. The extreme holdbacks are mostly at the prep school, catholic schools, ect. The publics and the privates largely don't compete against each other except for non-league games that are voluntarily scheduled. Age-based play for club lacrosse should go through the MS ages - so U13 and below.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
They are no changing the system. The club directors won’t do it. The money is there, it’s not broken so it’s not getting fixed. My kids are past club so I don’t care but this army has been going on for close to 10 years, it’s not changing...ever! Unless you all pull your kid from club until it’s fixed. That’s not happening, BOTC is not the battlefield this war is going to be won on. Until the majority of parents band together and don’t pony up the money it’s going to continue, I wish you all luck, but just forget this.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I, for one, have no problem with a family holding a kid back (or reclassing him if that is the proper word) so that he can be in whatever grade they want the kid to be in. It just should be true that in youth lacrosse, these kids should play vs kids their same age. So if I have a 2005 kid, I want him to play against 2005 kids (or use a Sept 1-Aug 30 year). I don't care if his opponents are in 7th grade, 9th grade, 5th grade, or no grade at all. With regard to school lacrosse (Middle School Teams, JV, Varsity), there is a fair amount of consistency within leagues, conferences, ect. My kids are suburban NY public school kids. There are very few extreme hold backs in the public schools. The extreme holdbacks are mostly at the prep school, catholic schools, ect. The publics and the privates largely don't compete against each other except for non-league games that are voluntarily scheduled. You may have no issue with it. I do, Ill paint this picture on the academic front; on age kid who is undersized, always played up, is a prospective D1 player at a few schools, as well as a top 10 student with 1300's SAT. Had not been for pre-1st hold backs, would have been a top 1, 2 or 3 student and this in a public NY school now is 15. So yeah, I think there is an issue, not just in sports. Why, because if "they" didnt hold their child back they would not have been a top 25 student if they were in their state intended/appropriate class/grade. Instead, they changed their child's "stars" which in turned impacted this student athlete!!!! And you say, everything balances out in college. But no, it doesn't, how can it. Each recruiting class at a school has what, at most, 12 recruits. If you are a goalie, a Fogo, an LSM, or a Lefty Attack there are truly 20 coveted spots in your recruited year. Now, over half the top 10 school have recruits in any given position that is a Hold-back of some sort. Compound this over 4 years the needle has moved further away from the coaches wanting a true on age athlete. It was best shown that, an athlete who works out at the same level at 23 as they did at 21 is in fact faster/stronger and both mentally/physically more mature at 23 than 21. .
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I, for one, have no problem with a family holding a kid back (or reclassing him if that is the proper word) so that he can be in whatever grade they want the kid to be in. It just should be true that in youth lacrosse, these kids should play vs kids their same age. So if I have a 2005 kid, I want him to play against 2005 kids (or use a Sept 1-Aug 30 year). I don't care if his opponents are in 7th grade, 9th grade, 5th grade, or no grade at all. With regard to school lacrosse (Middle School Teams, JV, Varsity), there is a fair amount of consistency within leagues, conferences, ect. My kids are suburban NY public school kids. There are very few extreme hold backs in the public schools. The extreme holdbacks are mostly at the prep school, catholic schools, ect. The publics and the privates largely don't compete against each other except for non-league games that are voluntarily scheduled. You may have no issue with it. I do, Ill paint this picture on the academic front; on age kid who is undersized, but always played and succeeded playing up, is a prospective D1 player at a few schools, as well as a top 15 student with 1300's SAT. Had not been for pre-1st hold backs in his school, would have been ranked a top 1, 2 or 3 student (and this in a public NY school) unfortunately, now due to Hold-backs is now ranked 15. So yeah, I think there is an issue, not just in sports. Why, because if "some" didnt hold their child back, their child would most certainly NOT have been a top 5 student, if they were in their state intended/appropriate class/grade. Instead, they changed their child's "stars/grad year" and BINGO they are Top 5 (actually 6 of top 10, 9 of top 15 are hold backs in a NYS public) so yes hold back have more than athletic impacts. And if you say, in sports everything balances out in college. No, it doesn't, how can it. Each school has a recruiting class of what, at most, 12 recruits. If you are a goalie, a Fogo, an LSM, or a Lefty Attack top 20 schools arnt taking multiple at those positions. Now, over half the top recruits in the top 10 schools have recruits in any given position that is a Hold-back of some sort. Compound this over 4 years and the needle has moved further away from the coaches wanting a true on age athlete. But I believe the best example I saw saw was when it was shown that, an athlete who works out at the same level at 23 as they did at 21 is in fact much faster/stronger and tougher both mentally/physically at 23 than 21.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
The only thing you said that made any sense was your last paragraph.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Does anyone look at the long term for the reclassed kids? Two I know of personally who were dominating studs have peaked. One is a sophomore who was a Freshman Phenom, the other is freshman at Top D1 program. Parents are short cited in their thinking. Give me the late developer any day of the week and he will have a longer “life span” I dont know of any overall study. But many players in NCAA Div 1 are 19 entering their freshman year of lacrosse. Look at any NCAA lacrosse roster and many are littered with private school holdbacks. Guterding ( Private HS) of Duke had his 24th Birthday yesterday according to TV. That is a holdback age. Many MIAA players are 19 going into first year of college. I dont have an exact number, but if it holds true to my own interactions with MIAA players, its over 50% Now there may be more that have fallen to wayside, but for many, it works. It was actually his 23rd birthday according to the broadcast. You got that part wrong. Pretty sure I heard 24 ..23 24 both are holdbacks.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I, for one, have no problem with a family holding a kid back (or reclassing him if that is the proper word) so that he can be in whatever grade they want the kid to be in. It just should be true that in youth lacrosse, these kids should play vs kids their same age. So if I have a 2005 kid, I want him to play against 2005 kids (or use a Sept 1-Aug 30 year). I don't care if his opponents are in 7th grade, 9th grade, 5th grade, or no grade at all. With regard to school lacrosse (Middle School Teams, JV, Varsity), there is a fair amount of consistency within leagues, conferences, ect. My kids are suburban NY public school kids. There are very few extreme hold backs in the public schools. The extreme holdbacks are mostly at the prep school, catholic schools, ect. The publics and the privates largely don't compete against each other except for non-league games that are voluntarily scheduled. You may have no issue with it. I do, Ill paint this picture on the academic front; on age kid who is undersized, always played up, is a prospective D1 player at a few schools, as well as a top 10 student with 1300's SAT. Had not been for pre-1st hold backs, would have been a top 1, 2 or 3 student and this in a public NY school now is 15. So yeah, I think there is an issue, not just in sports. Why, because if "they" didnt hold their child back they would not have been a top 25 student if they were in their state intended/appropriate class/grade. Instead, they changed their child's "stars" which in turned impacted this student athlete!!!! And you say, everything balances out in college. But no, it doesn't, how can it. Each recruiting class at a school has what, at most, 12 recruits. If you are a goalie, a Fogo, an LSM, or a Lefty Attack there are truly 20 coveted spots in your recruited year. Now, over half the top 10 school have recruits in any given position that is a Hold-back of some sort. Compound this over 4 years the needle has moved further away from the coaches wanting a true on age athlete. It was best shown that, an athlete who works out at the same level at 23 as they did at 21 is in fact faster/stronger and both mentally/physically more mature at 23 than 21. . Your reasoning why you dont like it is the reason people do it.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I, for one, have no problem with a family holding a kid back (or reclassing him if that is the proper word) so that he can be in whatever grade they want the kid to be in. It just should be true that in youth lacrosse, these kids should play vs kids their same age. So if I have a 2005 kid, I want him to play against 2005 kids (or use a Sept 1-Aug 30 year). I don't care if his opponents are in 7th grade, 9th grade, 5th grade, or no grade at all. With regard to school lacrosse (Middle School Teams, JV, Varsity), there is a fair amount of consistency within leagues, conferences, ect. My kids are suburban NY public school kids. There are very few extreme hold backs in the public schools. The extreme holdbacks are mostly at the prep school, catholic schools, ect. The publics and the privates largely don't compete against each other except for non-league games that are voluntarily scheduled. You may have no issue with it. I do, Ill paint this picture on the academic front; on age kid who is undersized, always played up, is a prospective D1 player at a few schools, as well as a top 10 student with 1300's SAT. Had not been for pre-1st hold backs, would have been a top 1, 2 or 3 student and this in a public NY school now is 15. So yeah, I think there is an issue, not just in sports. Why, because if "they" didnt hold their child back they would not have been a top 25 student if they were in their state intended/appropriate class/grade. Instead, they changed their child's "stars" which in turned impacted this student athlete!!!! And you say, everything balances out in college. But no, it doesn't, how can it. Each recruiting class at a school has what, at most, 12 recruits. If you are a goalie, a Fogo, an LSM, or a Lefty Attack there are truly 20 coveted spots in your recruited year. Now, over half the top 10 school have recruits in any given position that is a Hold-back of some sort. Compound this over 4 years the needle has moved further away from the coaches wanting a true on age athlete. It was best shown that, an athlete who works out at the same level at 23 as they did at 21 is in fact faster/stronger and both mentally/physically more mature at 23 than 21. . Your reasoning why you dont like it is the reason people do it. Have to say, that’s your problem, not the hold back parents. You want an even playing field, then hold back. Otherwise, since it’s filly within the rules, too bad.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I, for one, have no problem with a family holding a kid back (or reclassing him if that is the proper word) so that he can be in whatever grade they want the kid to be in. It just should be true that in youth lacrosse, these kids should play vs kids their same age. So if I have a 2005 kid, I want him to play against 2005 kids (or use a Sept 1-Aug 30 year). I don't care if his opponents are in 7th grade, 9th grade, 5th grade, or no grade at all. With regard to school lacrosse (Middle School Teams, JV, Varsity), there is a fair amount of consistency within leagues, conferences, ect. My kids are suburban NY public school kids. There are very few extreme hold backs in the public schools. The extreme holdbacks are mostly at the prep school, catholic schools, ect. The publics and the privates largely don't compete against each other except for non-league games that are voluntarily scheduled. You may have no issue with it. I do, Ill paint this picture on the academic front; on age kid who is undersized, always played up, is a prospective D1 player at a few schools, as well as a top 10 student with 1300's SAT. Had not been for pre-1st hold backs, would have been a top 1, 2 or 3 student and this in a public NY school now is 15. So yeah, I think there is an issue, not just in sports. Why, because if "they" didnt hold their child back they would not have been a top 25 student if they were in their state intended/appropriate class/grade. Instead, they changed their child's "stars" which in turned impacted this student athlete!!!! And you say, everything balances out in college. But no, it doesn't, how can it. Each recruiting class at a school has what, at most, 12 recruits. If you are a goalie, a Fogo, an LSM, or a Lefty Attack there are truly 20 coveted spots in your recruited year. Now, over half the top 10 school have recruits in any given position that is a Hold-back of some sort. Compound this over 4 years the needle has moved further away from the coaches wanting a true on age athlete. It was best shown that, an athlete who works out at the same level at 23 as they did at 21 is in fact faster/stronger and both mentally/physically more mature at 23 than 21. . Your reasoning why you dont like it is the reason people do it. Have to say, that’s your problem, not the hold back parents. You want an even playing field, then hold back. Otherwise, since it’s filly within the rules, too bad. Spoken like a true holdback apologist. Majority dislike the YOUTH aspect of holdbacks not HS. It is wrong at Youth level. It should be changed to age. Common sense tells you that, unless you are a holdback apologist. At HS its always been grade based and for most kids puberty has kicked in or is on its way. There are always going to be a few moaners but the vast Majority accept it without even caring about ages, its HS. But apologists like you cant tell the difference.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
The problem with reclassing is total cheating by clubs at the youth level. You have 16 year olds playing against 13/14 year old kids. Totally disgusting. At the high school level for prep schools they reclass for various reasons.....fine....stay in you age group when you go to club ball. Problem solved.
I would be totally embarrassed having my 16 year old son play against 13 year olds. (MADLAX, BBL, LAXACHUSETTS...just to name a few guilty clubs) Some parents and clubs don't have a problem with this.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
US Lax has no guts, never have. If soccer can have a validated age and team based player card so can lax. The travel clubs yield too much power more than the US Lax governing body. What a twisted model.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
It’s one of the stupidest discussions that never, ever seems to end. In youth sports, soccer, hockey, baseball all have age based play. Why is this such an ongoing conversation with lax. Not high school, not college. Youth is what I’m talking about. Shouldn’t competition at the youth ages be on a level playing field. It’s called fair competition. How can anyone debate that age based isn’t fair. There is no answer to that. Age based is fair. Grade based in many instances is unfair. That’s it. If your held back academically, or social issues, that’s life, I understand. In those instances parents should have their kids play up a grade to be on age. That’s would I would do. My 11 year old son would play with 11 year old kids. That’s called level playing field. Incredible that people still debate this.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Unless your kid is born in june, july or august and then you think age based is unfair.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Kids aren’t all going to be born same month. Let’s stop with the ridiculous comments. If your son is born June, July, or August. He is playing with kids less than a year older. If the cutoff was Jan 1, then kids Nov and Dec, would be 10,11 months younger than the oldest. We all understand there can be kids 11 months younger. But 11 months isn’t, 2,3 years. I couldn’t care what the cutoff date was. Just have a date like all other sports, enforce that date, then it would be as fair as possible. Plus this notIntelligent conversation can finally end. There is nothing else to say on this topic.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Sure there is. Parents are mad their little babies born in September, October and November don't get the built in age advantage. Hang in there Mom.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
If the spring Hs season is cxld? Does that mean all kids get another year of varsity? I ask, because I can see some reclass action.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
If the spring Hs season is cxld? Does that mean all kids get another year of varsity? I ask, because I can see some reclass action. You want little Johnny to be a Senior in HS again? Get a life!
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
If the spring Hs season is cxld? Does that mean all kids get another year of varsity? I ask, because I can see some reclass action. You want little Johnny to be a Senior in HS again? Get a life! It was a question followed by statement, I can see underclassmen doing it. Please work of reading comprehension.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
If the kid had a chance to go to the nba, I’d say reclass him. With this sport, if it were my son, he would go to college, then get a job. The upside with this sport is limited to saving 12 grand a year in college, maybe working a lacrosse camp for 300 dollars a week. No thanks.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
You'd have to move the child from public to private to reclass unless the kid was failing academically in most districts. In private, you run the risk of not being age eligible anyway unless they waive that requirement. Not happening on any approved board level.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
this is If the kid had a chance to go to the nba, I’d say reclass him. With this sport, if it were my son, he would go to college, then get a job. The upside with this sport is limited to saving 12 grand a year in college, maybe working a lacrosse camp for 300 dollars a week. No thanks. This is the part of the conversation I find funny. Maybe I am in the minority but for the most part we are probably talking about the elite or excellent player who reclassifies (I know those who will say if they are elite why will they reclassify) but putting that aside I cant imagine people reclassifying bc they want their kid to go play in the PLL for a few bucks or saving 12 grand in college. If reclassifying gets a boy into the Ivies or Duke or Va etc or certain schools in the NESCAC versus a second rate school then the parent did well by the child. Its not about a few month advantage in high school or even a year its about getting your child he best education possible which will potentially lead to greater chances and choices in life. Note I said potentially bc you can be successful going to lower end state school. Now before anyone says I am a parent of a hold back, my son will enter his senior year as a 16 year old and turn 17 in January of his senior year thus clearly younger than holdbacks. I do not begrudge the parents who seek to have their kids go to Deerfield or Brunswick or any other school if they are able to provide the best for their kid then good for them. My son will have to step up.
|
Like
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Moderated by A1Laxer, Abclax123, America's Game, Annoy., Anonymous 1, baldbear, Bearded_Kaos, BiggLax, BOTC_EVENTS, botc_ne, clax422, CP@BOTC, cp_botc, Gremelin, HammerOfJustice, hatimd80, JimSection1, Ladylaxer2609, lax516, Laxers412, LaxMomma, Liam Kassl, LILax15, MomOf6, Team BOTC, The Hop, TheBackOfTheCage, Thirdy@BOTC, TM@BOTC
|
|