Major Harris Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Yeah, I agree with this 100%. When I played football for the school, I saw little practice time and even less game time. When I played neighborhood ball against bigger and older kids, I'd put on a clinic. I loved playing those games.I went to a school that was very political. Starting spots were given based on last name, not how well you played, and that was a public school, not private. i can't judge your situation, but as a coach, i can tell you right now i've heard that a million times. it's usually the marginal players that say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted April 1, 2009 Author Share Posted April 1, 2009 wrestlers are very much that way about wrestling? Was this a question...or a statement? Lol. Well, I can say for 100% absolute certainty this is a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 I'm reading a book right now called "Outliers" and it has a section on successful athletes. Basically their point is that most elite athletes are born in the first three months of the year—to an extent that it's a statistical impossibility. Basically being born early gives them that much more time to grow and so when they start playing sports they have a natural physical advantage to their peers born later in the year that translates to getting picked for elite teams (travel/all-star teams), extra-practices, access to better coaching, etc. This holds true even if you adjust the "cut-off" date to August 1, like it is in the US for some sports. Holds true for academics as well. It's pretty interesting how something as arbitrary as what month you were born in can be such an accurate indicator of success down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted April 1, 2009 Author Share Posted April 1, 2009 I'm reading a book right now called "Outliers" and it has a section on successful athletes. Basically their point is that most elite athletes are born in the first three months of the year—to an extent that it's a statistical impossibility. Basically being born early gives them that much more time to grow and so when they start playing sports they have a natural physical advantage to their peers born later in the year that translates to getting picked for elite teams (travel/all-star teams), extra-practices, access to better coaching, etc. This holds true even if you adjust the "cut-off" date to August 1, like it is in the US for some sports. Holds true for academics as well. It's pretty interesting how something as arbitrary as what month you were born in can be such an accurate indicator of success down the road. My friend was reading that book when we were on vacation last month. She told me about that chapter (and a few others) during our train trips and I found that to be very interesting. I mean, it does make sense that kids born earlier are going to be bigger than their peers in their age-leagues, are going to better a bit more developed physically, will be more likely to get picked for the elite teams where they are facing better competition allowing them to develop more. I will definitely be taking this into consideration when it comes time to have little kiddies, haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Was this a question...or a statement? Lol. Well, I can say for 100% absolute certainty this is a fact. :finger: :nana: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsBry Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 i can't judge your situation, but as a coach, i can tell you right now i've heard that a million times. it's usually the marginal players that say it. That's funny, that's usually the response people hear from coaches that play their kids ahead of other, better players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 I'm reading a book right now called "Outliers" and it has a section on successful athletes. Basically their point is that most elite athletes are born in the first three months of the year—to an extent that it's a statistical impossibility. Basically being born early gives them that much more time to grow and so when they start playing sports they have a natural physical advantage to their peers born later in the year that translates to getting picked for elite teams (travel/all-star teams), extra-practices, access to better coaching, etc. This holds true even if you adjust the "cut-off" date to August 1, like it is in the US for some sports. Holds true for academics as well. It's pretty interesting how something as arbitrary as what month you were born in can be such an accurate indicator of success down the road. it's not the month, it's the age. the cut-off date for kindergarten is usually around sept. 1. so a kid born in january is 5 years and 7/8 months old when school starts. a kid born in august is a 8 months behind. in our county, we have what's called a P-1 program. It's basically a progression from kindergarten to first grade, for those that aren't ready to make that leap, but are beyond kindergarten. p-1 kids are often some of our top athletes down the road, mainly due to that extra year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted April 1, 2009 Author Share Posted April 1, 2009 it's not the month, it's the age.the cut-off date for kindergarten is usually around sept. 1. so a kid born in january is 5 years and 7/8 months old when school starts. a kid born in august is a 8 months behind. Yep, I think that was the point of the chapter in Outliers. They talked about it in terms of month, but the point was that kids born early in the year have so many number of months of a head start on their peers, just like you say. That makes a big difference when a 5 year old is 8 or nine months older than another 5 year old obviously. They are going to be that much more developed in their skill set, be physically stronger or bigger (usually), and have a better chance at getting onto better teams, more advanced leagues, etc. enabling them to develop even more. They are just a step ahead of their peers... That's funny, that's usually the response people hear from coaches that play their kids ahead of other, better players. So, that's what happened in your case, right? Of course. You must understand that this is response of yours above, is exactly something coaches are used to hearing from either 1) parents pissed their kids aren't starting or 2) or players in denial about their skill level and are pissed they do not get much playing time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 You must understand that this is response of yours above, is exactly something coaches are used to hearing from either 1) parents pissed their kids aren't starting or 2) or players in denial about their skill level and are pissed they do not get much playing time... While I do agree with both you and Major, there are times when a kid that doesn't get much PT is overlooked. Doesn't happen all the time, but it happens. Or the kid stunk in the beginning of the year, but by the end they're much better, but because you don't give them that chance to show it, they can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 it's not the month, it's the age. No, I got that. That's why I wrote: "This holds true even if you adjust the "cut-off" date to August 1, like it is in the US for some sports." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 Well, I'm happy. I just got my 8-10 Flag Football team for a brand spanking new non-profit league I am coaching for. I got some real speedy kids who are also "super-smart" (©Joe Gibbs 2006). Its gonna be fun playing in the NFL rules now instead of the rules we had in our old league. One cool thing is we are giving the kids a list of 4 names (that the coaches choose) and letting the kids decide what they want to be. We're also going to let them decorate their own uniforms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted April 2, 2009 Author Share Posted April 2, 2009 ZGUY - Your league sounds neat. Definitely keep us posted on your team! While I do agree with both you and Major, there are times when a kid that doesn't get much PT is overlooked.Doesn't happen all the time, but it happens. Or the kid stunk in the beginning of the year, but by the end they're much better, but because you don't give them that chance to show it, they can't. I have no doubt that it does happen. I'm not denying that...there are some cruddy coaches out there. That being said, when someone says they ran a "clinic" when playing unorganized, neighborhood ball and says they got no playing time in a public school because of politics, that is a big red flag to me. As for the "you" who don't get them much chance to show it, I guess you are being general in your reference... I'd have to say that in my experience, the majority of coaches I've worked with or even worked under were pretty fair in their assessments of player abilities and allottment of play time. I can tell you that with the team I assistant coach for, the girls know that the entire season is pretty much a revolving tryout. We try to keep the lineup pretty stable, but if a "starter" is frickin around or stinking it up in practices and a game or 2, or has a bad attitude and a freshman seems to be picking up their level of play and has a better attitude, we'll start the freshman over the senior in no time flat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.