I agree but will probably have a spurt where he 'ages' almost overnight.Class of 2020? More like 2025. Kid looks super young.
KOBE!
Yes, but it's pronounced Jamal.
Actually based on the fact knox is young the parents apparently send their kids to school early. So he could easily by 13 getting ready to turn 14 my sister turned 16 summer of her senior yearWell 2020 could be 14.
Actually based on the fact knox is young the parents apparently send their kids to school early. So he could easily by 13 getting ready to turn 14 my sister turned 16 summer of her senior year
Yea, why would you want to give your kid an extra year to develop in sports? It's not like it could pay off by saving you or your kid thousands of $ in tuition.Knox is 17+10mo. So he did not start school early. That means he has an August birthday, so he is one of the younger kids in his class, but he didn't start early. Me and both my kids (one is also class of 2020) all have late Aug or early Sept birthdays, and all have/will be 17 at HS graduation (like Knox). It is good to see parents (Knox) not hold their kid back a year just to give him an advantage in sports!
If your sister turned 16 the summer of her SR year, then she did start a year early or skip a grade.
(we also don't know how old that pic of KK's lil-bro is)
Yea, why would you want to give your kid an extra year to develop in sports? It's not like it could pay off by saving you or your kid thousands of $ in tuition.
I understand why some/many parents make that decision. I just don't think it is a good decision in most cases (see #2 below).
1 - unfair advantage (19 yr old competing against 17 yr old), it's certainly not a apples to apples comparison, actually the biggest difference is right when they are starting high school a 15-16 yr old that has had his puberty growth spurt vs a 14 yr old that may not have had his growth spurt yet, that is equally skilled but just not as big & strong as the other as a FR (but will be as a SR)
2 - the vast majority of kids won't get a college sports scholarship, much less become a professional athlete, so you are basically setting them back a year from becoming a productive adult
The type of parenting that puts a kid's educational readiness second to having an extra year of physical maturity so they can be the 7th man on a podunk varsity team that finishes second in the district is going to do way more harm towards that kid being a productive adult than the year alone will.
To your first point there are always going to be kids bigger, faster, and stronger. There are always going to be kids that hit puberty first or getting better coaching. As adults I think we all realize the myth that is apples to apples. Your second point assumes that there is a formula or finite age someone becomes a productive adult. I understand what you're saying but I truly don't think it matters one way or the other. A kid spending an extra year in school isn't hurting anyone. Heck it might be keeping some of these kids out of jail for a little longer.I understand why some/many parents make that decision. I just don't think it is a good decision in most cases (see #2 below).
1 - unfair advantage (19 yr old competing against 17 yr old), it's certainly not a apples to apples comparison, actually the biggest difference is right when they are starting high school a 15-16 yr old that has had his puberty growth spurt vs a 14 yr old that may not have had his growth spurt yet, that is equally skilled but just not as big & strong as the other as a FR (but will be as a SR)
2 - the vast majority of kids won't get a college sports scholarship, much less become a professional athlete, so you are basically setting them back a year from becoming a productive adult
Being held back has been common since I was a kid I'm 46 and I played football here in Mayfield the coach asked my dad if they would consider holding me back in the 8th grade. Catch was I couldn't play the season I stayed back and I like football but not enough to go thru another year of school for it.I understand why some/many parents make that decision. I just don't think it is a good decision in most cases (see #2 below).
1 - unfair advantage (19 yr old competing against 17 yr old), it's certainly not a apples to apples comparison, actually the biggest difference is right when they are starting high school a 15-16 yr old that has had his puberty growth spurt vs a 14 yr old that may not have had his growth spurt yet, that is equally skilled but just not as big & strong as the other as a FR (but will be as a SR)
2 - the vast majority of kids won't get a college sports scholarship, much less become a professional athlete, so you are basically setting them back a year from becoming a productive adult