When to let your kid quit?

The red shirting goes on in sports where recruiting is done by high school graduating class, not birth year. It's a huge problem in football, and it's a serious problem in lacrosse, because it works. In physical contact sports, an extra year of growth and strength is a huge advantage.


Red shirting has been going on academically as well, particularly with the rise of J/K. The parents with kids with June, July, August and September birthdays are at enrollment being increasingly told to wait a year, and put their kids in J/K so they will be the oldest in the class, as opposed to the youngest (like I was). The thought is that they'll be more socially and mentally ready for the coursework, which is being pushed at earlier ages (and the schools these days are all about performance and maintaining their high test scores). If the child is on the younger end and is struggling before going to middle school or (apparently from the article) even high school, the parents might get the same recommendation to repeat a year.
 
Funny you mention lacrosse- one I knew transferred from a great school here as a junior to a prep school on the East coast. Due to the transfer he was allowed to become a junior again - they cited concerns as academics as parents but it was clear they wanted to have him compete for lacrosse.
It worked . Transferred as a Jr. ended up playing two years there and Duke scholarship.
Quite frankly why is everyone in a hurry to grow up anyway?
Holding one of mine back in fourth grade for maturity was one of he best things I ever did

I had someone tell me that they wish their parents would have held them back a grade or put him in school later. He felt that if he was a year older that he would have been drafted sooner in the NFL and it would have meant more money for him.

http://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-draft-contract-values-2015-4

Both these posts make a lot of sense to me. The whole point of the first chapter of Outliers was that the "oldest" in an age group were ridiculously over-represented among the elite players. So if you redshirt for a year, making that kid older relative to his age group, his chances of being "elite" are a lot higher. It's a lot easier to look like a superstar with an extra year of physical maturity.

The problem is when you get to the point when so many kids are held back a year that red shirting loses its advantage. So then to get back the advantage of being the oldest, kids get redshirted for two years. I've heard in football some kids are redshirted three years. Imagine a 21 year DI athlete on the same high school football or lacrosse field as a decent 14 year old high school freshman. IMO, that's a dangerous situation and totally unfair to the non-redshirters.

The point to remember is that for every advantage gained by a redshirted athlete, those advantages are gained at the expense of non-redshirted athletes who now have to compete with kids that are older and more mature.

I'm not saying redshirting should be banned because every kid is different, and some kids need an extra year. But I do think there has to be a maximum age, say the kid has to be 18 or younger by 9/1, in order to be able to get on the field in high school.
 
Both these posts make a lot of sense to me. The whole point of the first chapter of Outliers was that the "oldest" in an age group were ridiculously over-represented among the elite players. So if you redshirt for a year, making that kid older relative to his age group, his chances of being "elite" are a lot higher. It's a lot easier to look like a superstar with an extra year of physical maturity.

The problem is when you get to the point when so many kids are held back a year that red shirting loses its advantage. So then to get back the advantage of being the oldest, kids get redshirted for two years. I've heard in football some kids are redshirted three years. Imagine a 21 year DI athlete on the same high school football or lacrosse field as a decent 14 year old high school freshman. IMO, that's a dangerous situation and totally unfair to the non-redshirters.

The point to remember is that for every advantage gained by a redshirted athlete, those advantages are gained at the expense of non-redshirted athletes who now have to compete with kids that are older and more mature.

I'm not saying redshirting should be banned because every kid is different, and some kids need an extra year. But I do think there has to be a maximum age, say the kid has to be 18 or younger by 9/1, in order to be able to get on the field in high school.

I like your last paragraph a lot- makes great common sense to me.
Again what one friend did was transfer his kid to an east coast boarding school for an additional year of high school- like a gap year program. He played athletics there- I don't know he logistics and the how's that that occurred but I think it was similar to what the USAFA has as their "prep school" and fed into a well known athletics program.
Not every kid gets recruited right out of high school and not every kid wants that exact path either.
His kid has an extra year to learn how to be a student, grow up, get stronger as being a D1 athlete was a lot different than high school so when he finally hit the field he was an impact player.
This kid was a star previously- but he wanted to be better than that in his mind. Looking from the outside I remember being very confused by the path. Just food for thought I really appreciate your dialogue and insights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JJP
Both these posts make a lot of sense to me. The whole point of the first chapter of Outliers was that the "oldest" in an age group were ridiculously over-represented among the elite players. So if you redshirt for a year, making that kid older relative to his age group, his chances of being "elite" are a lot higher. It's a lot easier to look like a superstar with an extra year of physical maturity.

The problem is when you get to the point when so many kids are held back a year that red shirting loses its advantage. So then to get back the advantage of being the oldest, kids get redshirted for two years. I've heard in football some kids are redshirted three years. Imagine a 21 year DI athlete on the same high school football or lacrosse field as a decent 14 year old high school freshman. IMO, that's a dangerous situation and totally unfair to the non-redshirters.

The point to remember is that for every advantage gained by a redshirted athlete, those advantages are gained at the expense of non-redshirted athletes who now have to compete with kids that are older and more mature.

I'm not saying redshirting should be banned because every kid is different, and some kids need an extra year. But I do think there has to be a maximum age, say the kid has to be 18 or younger by 9/1, in order to be able to get on the field in high school.
There already is an age limit to play HS sports. I believe it's 19.5 years...
 
I had someone tell me that they wish their parents would have held them back a grade or put him in school later. He felt that if he was a year older that he would have been drafted sooner in the NFL and it would have meant more money for him.

http://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-draft-contract-values-2015-4

I can see where your friend is coming from about being drafted sooner in the NFL but much of the research points to lower lifetime earnings for those who are redshirted. For example, would he have had to retire a year earlier because he would have been too old to play and would have missed an entire year of earnings.

"And finally, parents should bear in mind that redshirting can even have an effect on their child’s economic future. Starting school at age 6 instead of age 5 means heading off to college at age 19 instead of age 18. (Perhaps spending an extra year with a teenager in the house is another cost to consider!) Then the student graduates from college and enters the workforce at age 23 instead of age 22. The redshirted individual will ultimately spend one less year in the labor force and forgo the returns of an extra year of experience throughout his working life. Assuming that, as research seems to indicate, being redshirted has no net long-term impacts on skill level, we can estimate the cost of losing that year in the labor force for a college-educated male who retires at age 67. Over the course of the worker’s career, working full time and year-round, he can expect to earn $80,000 less."

http://educationnext.org/is-your-child-ready-kindergarten-redshirting-may-do-more-harm-than-good/
 
I can see where your friend is coming from about being drafted sooner in the NFL but much of the research points to lower lifetime earnings for those who are redshirted. For example, would he have had to retire a year earlier because he would have been too old to play and would have missed an entire year of earnings.

"And finally, parents should bear in mind that redshirting can even have an effect on their child’s economic future. Starting school at age 6 instead of age 5 means heading off to college at age 19 instead of age 18. (Perhaps spending an extra year with a teenager in the house is another cost to consider!) Then the student graduates from college and enters the workforce at age 23 instead of age 22. The redshirted individual will ultimately spend one less year in the labor force and forgo the returns of an extra year of experience throughout his working life. Assuming that, as research seems to indicate, being redshirted has no net long-term impacts on skill level, we can estimate the cost of losing that year in the labor force for a college-educated male who retires at age 67. Over the course of the worker’s career, working full time and year-round, he can expect to earn $80,000 less."

http://educationnext.org/is-your-child-ready-kindergarten-redshirting-may-do-more-harm-than-good/
Some good points..
 
Let him quit 2 years ago?

I usually try and turn it around on my son if he pushes back on a practice.

Kid: "Ugh, practice"
Me: "You don't have to go, call Coach _____ and let him know you don't feel like going to practice today"

That's usually enough. If the pushback persists, then I'd start to worry.

Ha, that's what I do (although I tell DD to text him) -- works every time!
 
Let him quit 2 years ago?

I usually try and turn it around on my son if he pushes back on a practice.

Kid: "Ugh, practice"
Me: "You don't have to go, call Coach _____ and let him know you don't feel like going to practice today"

That's usually enough. If the pushback persists, then I'd start to worry.


Never thought of that! Right now I tell him if he doesn't go to practice he loses all his electronics and phone till he goes to the next practice. which means he wouldn't have access for days. He ends up going but it's never without an argument. He says he hates soccer that I made him hate it. His grades are average nothing to brag about. I told him if he can swing a 4.0 I'll let him quit, but that's not going to happen.

It bugs me to see him on the computer when he's not in school or at practice. I mean give me a break it's 2-3 times a week out of 7. The other 4-5 he has to himself to play hours and hours of his stupid games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JJP
This is a super interesting topic and one I never thought I'd consider. My DS just hit double digits and if he's not playing he's on the gadgets. It's always too much. My DD is a teenager and if she's not playing she's with her friends. I can't imagine ever telling them to practice since the only way to play well is to enjoy it. There are too many other ways for us and them to spend time if they don't love doing this. Us parents need to remember that.
 
They should be "playing soccer" not "working soccer".
My middle kid (she is 9) is with what I consider to be an awesome coach. The other day she told me "I don't like practice. I just want to play in games. Practice is so boring."
It was eye opening to hear this. I love his coaching style and I see the kids improving. But it needs to click with your kid. She'll be sticking with this team, but I'm going to try and help her find the fun some more. She'll be having lots of pool time and sleepovers with her teammates this summer.
 
Never thought of that! Right now I tell him if he doesn't go to practice he loses all his electronics and phone till he goes to the next practice. which means he wouldn't have access for days. He ends up going but it's never without an argument. He says he hates soccer that I made him hate it. His grades are average nothing to brag about. I told him if he can swing a 4.0 I'll let him quit, but that's not going to happen.

It bugs me to see him on the computer when he's not in school or at practice. I mean give me a break it's 2-3 times a week out of 7. The other 4-5 he has to himself to play hours and hours of his stupid games.

Gotta back off. The pushing kids into things mistake is as old as parenthood. A kids success is 90% self driven, all we can do is try and make it easier for them to succeed by staying positive.
 
They should be "playing soccer" not "working soccer".
My middle kid (she is 9) is with what I consider to be an awesome coach. The other day she told me "I don't like practice. I just want to play in games. Practice is so boring."
It was eye opening to hear this. I love his coaching style and I see the kids improving. But it needs to click with your kid. She'll be sticking with this team, but I'm going to try and help her find the fun some more. She'll be having lots of pool time and sleepovers with her teammates this summer.
Mine said the exact same thing...they do a lot of skills work during practice...almost never scrimmage. I had to explain that if you don't practice, you don't get better, kids around you get better, and then you start losing a lot more games. I also had to remind her that if you don't get better then there are plenty of kids on the team below her that are willing to take her spot. She hasn't complained about practice since.

This thread is a bit appalling to me since my personal experience was that I had to fight my parents to have an opportunity to play soccer growing up. If my kid wants to quit I am perfectly fine with that...as long as that time is not substituted with screen/TV/video games.
 
Mine said the exact same thing...they do a lot of skills work during practice...almost never scrimmage. I had to explain that if you don't practice, you don't get better, kids around you get better, and then you start losing a lot more games. I also had to remind her that if you don't get better then there are plenty of kids on the team below her that are willing to take her spot. She hasn't complained about practice since.

This thread is a bit appalling to me since my personal experience was that I had to fight my parents to have an opportunity to play soccer growing up. If my kid wants to quit I am perfectly fine with that...as long as that time is not substituted with screen/TV/video games.

Times are a'changing. My parents could've cared less if I played growing up either. They would have preferred if I had quit, less driving for them. And they certainly didn't want to sign me up for the expensive summer camps at the local university (although I talked them into it a couple of times). But things are different now. People realize how important and enriching sports can be in a kids' life. Don't be appalled because they want their child to experience and get all the benefits that sports can offer. Sports nowadays require so much more commitment and time than they did when we were kids, and when the kids play high level, the pressure is enormous. There are coaches shouting, parents shouting, sometimes pointing out every single mistake a kid makes in a game, and even at practice. Parents are the worst - making comments that don't even coincide with what the kids are being taught by the coach (I usually tell those parents to zip it). So I don't blame my kid for sometimes wondering if she is "up" for going to practice where she knows every time she touches the ball she is being scrutinized, and her team mates will call her out for almost every mistake. I just hope that if she has the passion to continue putting herself out there, and I will do anything I can do to help her.
 
He ends up going but it's never without an argument. He says he hates soccer that I made him hate it.

I gave myself a five minute rule. I'm only allowed to discuss/critique my kids game or practice for five minutes on the drive home but my kid has to give me their undivided attention. No looking out the window , texting or one earbud in. They need to be engaged in the conversation, if not, the time starts over. Of course you can talk longer but only if your kid wants too. Lastly, try to find at least one positive point each time. If I couldn't find one then I would tell my kid "well at least you had a good hair day today" .
 
Mine said the exact same thing...they do a lot of skills work during practice...almost never scrimmage. I had to explain that if you don't practice, you don't get better, kids around you get better, and then you start losing a lot more games. .

Your coach must be giving the US Soccer and CalSouth methodology the massive finger. See my post on the E License, but the gist of the US Soccer/Cal South methodology is, in short, all srimmage all the time. Skills work is supposed to be limited to the warm up (phase 1), progressing to small sided exercise, mid sided exercise, and (they couldn't emphasize enough) always always always ending in scrimmage. So your kid, particularly if trained previously in the US Soccer methodology, might have a point of complaint. My own take on it is the methodology has its pluses and minuses, and I think it works better with the olders than the younger. The theory is that kids learn in realistic situations and by having fun.
 
Your coach must be giving the US Soccer and CalSouth methodology the massive finger. See my post on the E License, but the gist of the US Soccer/Cal South methodology is, in short, all srimmage all the time. Skills work is supposed to be limited to the warm up (phase 1), progressing to small sided exercise, mid sided exercise, and (they couldn't emphasize enough) always always always ending in scrimmage. So your kid, particularly if trained previously in the US Soccer methodology, might have a point of complaint. My own take on it is the methodology has its pluses and minuses, and I think it works better with the olders than the younger. The theory is that kids learn in realistic situations and by having fun.

I understand ending all practices with a scrimmage. They get to use what they learned that day in a practical way. Now, if you spend half or more of practice scrimmaging, that's hadn't coaching.
 
I understand ending all practices with a scrimmage. They get to use what they learned that day in a practical way. Now, if you spend half or more of practice scrimmaging, that's hadn't coaching.

Agreed, half or more of the practice scrimmage is just lazy coaching. It is easy and you need no training whatsoever to set up 2 sides and then say, "Play!" and then go stand to the side and look at your phone. A parent can do that and let the coach go home or on to the next practice.

Now if the coach is consistently stopping play during scrimmage, talking about what specific scenarios, decisions made vs. other possible decisions, moving players around, etc, that THAT is hard work and the coach deserves every penny he makes for coaching like that.
 
Back
Top