TarponChaser said:

---

Sean98 said:

---

Can I ask a related/unrelated question? And to be clear, I'm excited for this commitment but it brings something up that I've been wondering about... particularly as it relates to projectability.

This kid will be 19.25 years old when he steps on campus. Do parents intentionally start their kids late in school these days? Do they hold them back at some point? I was 17 when I walked on the A&M campus. I looked at his pitching stats and thought "he's a junior to be so he'll add 3-5mph" and he may. But he's almost the same age I was when I graduated HS.

And this isn't a JD thing, it happens a lot it seems these days. Just curious.

---

It happens a lot. I even know a bunch of kids whose parents have taken them out of school to repeat 8th grade via homeschool and reclassify them. And not just summer birthdays either but kids born in the middle of the school year like in January.

There's a lot of disagreement over whether or not it's a good move.

---

This is a great question.

I didn't realize it until after I graduated. But through social media I learned that a large number of my HS classmates had been held back a year. It was weird learning this after all those years of being around each other. I had always assumed we were all the same age. Seems like the majority of my tiny graduating class of 57 students, class of 98' was a year older than me.

We totally dominated in football too.

Sean98 said:

---

Can I ask a related/unrelated question? And to be clear, I'm excited for this commitment but it brings something up that I've been wondering about... particularly as it relates to projectability.

This kid will be 19.25 years old when he steps on campus. Do parents intentionally start their kids late in school these days? Do they hold them back at some point? I was 17 when I walked on the A&M campus. I looked at his pitching stats and thought "he's a junior to be so he'll add 3-5mph" and he may. But he's almost the same age I was when I graduated HS.

And this isn't a JD thing, it happens a lot it seems these days. Just curious.

---

Yes absolutely. Parents do it for academic, social, and athletic reasons.

Malcom Gladwell wrote about age and athletic performance in his book "Outliers". He observed that most of the kids that were in elite youth hockey were born in January. The selection process in Canada (his home country) was based on birth year not birth day. Kids born in January of 20xx are for all purposes 1 year older than kids born in December of same year.

He pointed out most professional hockey players in Canada are born in January and February.

Parents do a whole bunch to give their kids an advantage. Holding kids back lets them get bigger and better and compete with kids smaller and less mature.

Use to be controversial, now it's normal.

AggByMarriage said:

---

Sean98 said:

---

Can I ask a related/unrelated question? And to be clear, I'm excited for this commitment but it brings something up that I've been wondering about... particularly as it relates to projectability.

This kid will be 19.25 years old when he steps on campus. Do parents intentionally start their kids late in school these days? Do they hold them back at some point? I was 17 when I walked on the A&M campus. I looked at his pitching stats and thought "he's a junior to be so he'll add 3-5mph" and he may. But he's almost the same age I was when I graduated HS.

And this isn't a JD thing, it happens a lot it seems these days. Just curious.

---

Yes absolutely. Parents do it for academic, social, and athletic reasons.

Malcom Gladwell wrote about age and athletic performance in his book "Outliers". He observed that most of the kids that were in elite youth hockey were born in January. The selection process in Canada (his home country) was based on birth year not birth day. Kids born in January of 20xx are for all purposes 1 year older than kids born in December of same year.

He pointed out most professional hockey players in Canada are born in January and February.

Parents do a whole bunch to give their kids an advantage. Holding kids back lets them get bigger and better and compete with kids smaller and less mature.

Use to be controversial, now it's normal.

---

I'm familiar with Gladwell's study and while people frequently point to it, I think it's correlation and not causality. The holding kids back or what part of the year they're born in might be impactful at the margins but if you're a stud you're a stud and you'll advance regardless.

One of the top-10 kids in the country in the class of 2028 (same as my oldest) is Striker Pence. His uncle is former MLB player, Hunter Pence. The kid is now a HS freshman but turned 15 in like March. Most kids turn 15 during their freshman year of HS. Striker is 6'5" 190'ish and already touching 94. He could be in the class of 2027 and he'd still be one of the top prospects in the country in his class. Hell, put him against most elite 2025 prospects and he's still a top player.

Similarly, look at Dexter McCleon, Jr. (son of the former NFL safety). He turns 15 in October but reclassified from the class of 2027 to the class of 2028 a year or so back. He's 6'3" 200'ish and touching 94 as well. All the same statements I made about Pence hold true for McCleon too.

What is the benefit to those kids in holding them back? I'd argue they would benefit more by playing up against older, more physically mature players with more experience vs. playing down in age. So now they're not just dominant but absurdly so. I see so many kids who are older and more physically mature within an age range who are studs early but then everybody catches up to them and they're no longer the studs.

I can see the argument if a kid is smaller physically and less mature (physically or emotionally) but I'm a huge proponent of "iron sharpens iron."

TarponChaser said:

---

AggByMarriage said:

---

Yes absolutely. Parents do it for academic, social, and athletic reasons.

Malcom Gladwell wrote about age and athletic performance in his book "Outliers". He observed that most of the kids that were in elite youth hockey were born in January. The selection process in Canada (his home country) was based on birth year not birth day. Kids born in January of 20xx are for all purposes 1 year older than kids born in December of same year.

He pointed out most professional hockey players in Canada are born in January and February.

---

I'm familiar with Gladwell's study and while people frequently point to it, I think it's correlation and not causality. The holding kids back or what part of the year they're born in might be impactful at the margins but if you're a stud you're a stud and you'll advance regardless.

---

(not to derail changing this to hockey, but it's right in my wheelhouse and relevant)

One thing that Gladwell's study didn't address thoroughly enough is the ripple effect that started much earlier

Players born in Jan-Mar had a bigger advantage in elite hockey tryouts ages 8-9-10, so they made better teams with better coaches and teammates, and played against better competition. Very well proven statistically, and carries through all the way to college and junior hockey.

Hockey is also unusual that elite players will usually play a year or two of junior hockey as 18-19-20 year olds *after* high school or prep careers, so vast majority of college hockey players are 21-25 years old.

A USA Hockey official told us years ago the average age of a D1 freshman was just under 21, and it's very accurate. Mine turned 21 early in his freshman year, and almost all his freshman teammates were the same.

Which is why seeing a kid like Macklin Celebrini dominate for Boston College at 17 years old was insane.

TAMU1990 said:

---

Lots of people hold back their kids if they were born later in their class. May-Aug birthdays are typical holdback targets and it's usually boys. I think it happens a lot. They just start Kindergarten later.

---

Up here in ny, lots of parents hold kids back who were born between October and December

They'd rather their kids be on the more mature side than less mature side

87_Was_Long_Ago said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

AggByMarriage said:

---

Yes absolutely. Parents do it for academic, social, and athletic reasons.

Malcom Gladwell wrote about age and athletic performance in his book "Outliers". He observed that most of the kids that were in elite youth hockey were born in January. The selection process in Canada (his home country) was based on birth year not birth day. Kids born in January of 20xx are for all purposes 1 year older than kids born in December of same year.

He pointed out most professional hockey players in Canada are born in January and February.

---

I'm familiar with Gladwell's study and while people frequently point to it, I think it's correlation and not causality. The holding kids back or what part of the year they're born in might be impactful at the margins but if you're a stud you're a stud and you'll advance regardless.

---

(not to derail changing this to hockey, but it's right in my wheelhouse and relevant)

One thing that Gladwell's study didn't address thoroughly enough is the ripple effect that started much earlier

Players born in Jan-Mar had a bigger advantage in elite hockey tryouts ages 8-9-10, so they made better teams with better coaches and teammates, and played against better competition. Very well proven statistically, and carries through all the way to college and junior hockey.

Hockey is also unusual that elite players will usually play a year or two of junior hockey as 18-19-20 year olds *after* high school or prep careers, so vast majority of college hockey players are 21-25 years old.

A USA Hockey official told us years ago the average age of a D1 freshman was just under 21, and it's very accurate. Mine turned 21 early in his freshman year, and almost all his freshman teammates were the same.

Which is why seeing a kid like Macklin Celebrini dominate for Boston College at 17 years old was insane.

---

I don't know enough about hockey (which is to say I know you play on ice with skates, a hard rubber disk, and sticks but that's about it) to compare but I've already witnessed it in baseball, football, basketball, and girls volleyball where a lot of these kids who, for lack of a better term, have gamed the age classification system to be older than their competitive peers so that they're a year or more older than kids in their same class get passed up.

I agree there's a lot to be said for getting on better teams with better coaches and teammates but all that assumes the kid who is older and more mature: 1) puts in the work on fundamentals; 2) has the genetic capacity to be bigger/faster/stronger/quicker when fully mature. As for facing better competition, that's somewhat on the kid and their team and who they decide to play.

My point being if that kid born January-March or whatever timeframe is deemed most advantageous has a dad who's 5'9" and a mom who's 5'2", it doesn't really matter if the kid is 5'6" at 11 and destroying all the other kids. Odds are that kid is going to be 5'9" and unless they can run a 4.3 40 in football or a 6.3 60 in baseball the likelihood they will have a future in either sport is extremely low.

I'll admit a bias because my boys are the youngest ones in their respective classes but I've seen it with my oldest where a bunch of kids he played with from 8-12 were better than him, so even though he played on high-level teams he was at the bottom of the roster. But he's blown past almost all those kids- the others are still fundamentally skilled but so is he only now he's much bigger, stronger, faster, and more explosive than them because he's now 6'1" 180# and hasn't had his growth spurt yet while a lot of those kids are topped out at 5'9".

After my 1976 7th grade B team football season, our coach approached my dad about holding me back in 7th grade for football. By the end of the season I was good enough to make first string guard and d tackle while being the second shortest player on the team.

I was young for my grade (born after the Sept 1 cutoff), my parents were older (not so old these days, but they were 36 when I was born). I showed an inclination toward being smart, so they purposely started me in private school early, then they had to let me into 2nd grade at the public school at the younger age.

As much as Dad wanted me to succeed as an athlete, he placed much more importance on academics and I was a good student, so no go on the hold back for me. And the getting me out of the house sooner of course.

I always wished I'd simply started when I should have due to maturity issues compared to my classmates. I was a late bloomer for my age as it was, then I was younger than pretty much all my classmates. I ended up OK though.

TAMU1990 said:

---

Lots of people hold back their kids if they were born later in their class. May-Aug birthdays are typical holdback targets and it's usually boys. I think it happens a lot. They just start Kindergarten later.

---

Around these parts, they call them red-shirts and they tend to do it 6th or 7th grade

NE PA Ag said:

---

After my 1976 7th grade B team football season, our coach approached my dad about holding me back in 7th grade for football. By the end of the season I was good enough to make first string guard and d tackle while being the second shortest player on the team.

I was young for my grade (born after the Sept 1 cutoff), my parents were older (not so old these days, but they were 36 when I was born). I showed an inclination toward being smart, so they purposely started me in private school early, then they had to let me into 2nd grade at the public school at the younger age.

As much as Dad wanted me to succeed as an athlete, he placed much more importance on academics and I was a good student, so no go on the hold back for me. And the getting me out of the house sooner of course.

I always wished I'd simply started when I should have due to maturity issues compared to my classmates. I was a late bloomer for my age as it was, then I was younger than pretty much all my classmates. I ended up OK though.

---

My mom turned down several requests to have me skip grades due to keeping me with my age group. One issue with private school is it can be either much better than public school or more iffy. We considered enrolling our post-K elementary school eldest in an athletics oriented private in Denton to get him out of an awful public in Hoghland Village but ended up with him in a pretty decent church school for a year there then one in Austin before reinserting him into a public. I had to go school teachers on why my son was behaving strangely: boredom. They kept wanting to put him on Ritalin and told us to do that.

Only one of my kids excelled in public school and none were athletes. All four are more like me than like a typical student: curious, investigative, and more than a little rebellious. But each can really spit out fascinating insights and supporting analysis. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry…heh.

My son has an early September birthday so he's one of the oldest kids in his class, excluding the holdback kids. He's 12 (about to turn 13) and has just entered the 7th grade. He's class of 2030.

I have him playing up against kids one class year older than him. My thinking is that he'll be doing well to get to about 6'0", 185 lbs. (if he works at it), so he might as well get used to competing against larger humans because, if he ever gets a chance to play college ball, those rosters will be full of 6'3" guys.

My point is though...

By contrast, the Banditos 12U Majors team that just won the PG Nat'l Championship has only three players on its roster who are younger than my son. If you trust the height and weight entered on PG's site for those players, the average guy on that team outweighs my son by a per player average of 45 pounds.

That team has one re-classed kid who ought to be a grade ahead. Only three (younger than my son) with mid-school-year birth dates and rightfully 2030 kids. And then 12 players that were simply summer holdbacks.

That might not seem like a lot older than kids like my son but it makes a big difference when you have a whole team full of them.

Mister Mystery Guest said:

---

By contrast, the Banditos 12U Majors team that just won the PG Nat'l Championship has only three players on its roster who are younger than my son. If you trust the height and weight entered on PG's site for those players, the average guy on that team outweighs my son by a per player average of 45 pounds.

---

Yup, De Leon stacks those teams. Those people are happy to pay for his hooker obsession & feel like they're really getting good training.

Maybe they learn other stuff from him......

My son is a grade level exception. His birthday is at the end of March, but my wife wanted to not start him in kindergarten due to maturity issues. He is the only grade level exception on his baseball team. One can certainly tell he is one of the older kids on the team. He will have his drivers license as a freshman....yikes.

His bat speed really seems noticeable! This should translate to meaningful power for sure.

Re summer birthdays, it is not only common but probably advisable to have them be the older kid in the class rather than the younger- especially with boys, who mature a bit slower.

It has nothing to do with sports, thiugh that coupd be the impetus for some.

If I goes to college, he will be able to go in the draft after the second year as he will be over 21.

Got my Ph.D. at 26. Glad I didn't get red-shirted for sportball. Would've lost some good earning years.