Long time coming…

[youthathletics]

The real problem is that our youth program (NVYLL) was the largest in all of US lacrosse when I started coaching at the youth level and now it is shrinking fast. It used to be tough to make the A team now they have trouble fielding two teams. We have more clubs and far fewer players trying out for these clubs. The market supply and demand will cause the: True lacrosse, NLF, 3 Step, Madlax, folks ect to re-think the system as they are the only ones that can change the system.

This is more an issue of HOCO than anything else. It crushed MD rec youth lacrosse and now it is doing the same in NoVa. I don't know if there are other HOCO like leagues around (I'm sure there are) but it makes me wonder whether this is happening in other places to the detriment of youth rec leagues. HOCO's ability to put travel/club teams in leagues with higher level of games certainly has caused issues in the rec leagues. Because the 7th and 8th graders play on Saturday and the NVYLL plays boys games on Saturday - rec games at the 14U level are basically true rec games. And that can be alright but it does have an impact on participation.

I won't get into the internal cannibalization that some programs are doing to field "elite" club teams in HOCO

So one other thing about the rec leagues that are generally run by the county or local youth lacrosse club (at least for the NVYLL) is that many of these club teams now are running mini-rec leagues. My inbox is filled with Next Level emails about playing in their "rec" league.

HOCO league would be a good test to see if youth lacrosse will ever go age based and enforce it. NVYLL has always been able to manage this. I still do not understand why a club would not work harder to support youth lacrosse when that is where they get their customers.

HOCO always had Rec Plus...at the time they where called the Cobra league, if memory serves me.

I believe the HOCO issue came after the initial CLUB time bomb. I coached in AACty for years, when they had AA, A, B, and C brackets at almost every level. Then, we started to see the rise of competitive/select clubs. Crabs, Hawks, Mavericks, Cannons, MADlax, Club Blue, VEL, Next Level, and few others...each club had to offer an approved Turf field to be in the league, was called the NPYLL, run by Cabul Maddux if I recall. This is the era when private club owners where making real cash. This model spawned the east coast and headed west and was when we saw college assistant coaches leaving to run franchise leagues for 3D in major markets. Which spawned even more like 91, True, LIExpress....

The idea was, stay on your rec team and play Saturday games, then come play for your select team on Sundays.....the Select Clubs where promising games only on Sunday's...to avoid conflict. That chipped away and chipped away and chipped away at the rec scene, where parents and kids had to ultimately make a choice....pick one b/c we can no longer do both.

Then became the increased access to fields as the league grew, and if memory serves me, AACty was no longer allowing outside clubs to use their fields. Someone had a contact with HOCO and the flood gate opened breathing continued life.

Moms and Dads that are ex players or would be coaches, are going to gravitate to Club Scenes b/c of the competitive nature and more opportunities for johnny and jill to get a foot in the door and a major private school and ultimately college opportunity.

In short, I believe the toothpaste is out of the tube.

Another new scene that has recently flared up is 'academy' style businesses. Not necessarily a team/club based model, but come to us for instructional time, like music lessons and we will teach you child what they are not getting at a team practice....much like a tutor. These have shown to be quite lucrative and often lead to yet another Select Club that provides teams for competition at showcases.

IMO, all the above is a detriment to the sport as a whole, b/c it only caters to families with the discretionary income to spend for these often outrageously priced clubs and academies.

When we where in the AACty league, the player fee was something like $80-100 for the spring, plus uniforms, which covered official fees. It has not changed much in the last 12 years. SEE HERE

[MDlaxfan76]

The real problem is that our youth program (NVYLL) was the largest in all of US lacrosse when I started coaching at the youth level and now it is shrinking fast. It used to be tough to make the A team now they have trouble fielding two teams. We have more clubs and far fewer players trying out for these clubs. The market supply and demand will cause the: True lacrosse, NLF, 3 Step, Madlax, folks ect to re-think the system as they are the only ones that can change the system.

This is more an issue of HOCO than anything else. It crushed MD rec youth lacrosse and now it is doing the same in NoVa. I don't know if there are other HOCO like leagues around (I'm sure there are) but it makes me wonder whether this is happening in other places to the detriment of youth rec leagues. HOCO's ability to put travel/club teams in leagues with higher level of games certainly has caused issues in the rec leagues. Because the 7th and 8th graders play on Saturday and the NVYLL plays boys games on Saturday - rec games at the 14U level are basically true rec games. And that can be alright but it does have an impact on participation.

I won't get into the internal cannibalization that some programs are doing to field "elite" club teams in HOCO

So one other thing about the rec leagues that are generally run by the county or local youth lacrosse club (at least for the NVYLL) is that many of these club teams now are running mini-rec leagues. My inbox is filled with Next Level emails about playing in their "rec" league.

HOCO league would be a good test to see if youth lacrosse will ever go age based and enforce it. NVYLL has always been able to manage this. I still do not understand why a club would not work harder to support youth lacrosse when that is where they get their customers.

HOCO always had Rec Plus...at the time they where called the Cobra league, if memory serves me.

I believe the HOCO issue came after the initial CLUB time bomb. I coached in AACty for years, when they had AA, A, B, and C brackets at almost every level. Then, we started to see the rise of competitive/select clubs. Crabs, Hawks, Mavericks, Cannons, MADlax, Club Blue, VEL, Next Level, and few others...each club had to offer an approved Turf field to be in the league, was called the NPYLL, run by Cabul Maddux if I recall. This is the era when private club owners where making real cash. This model spawned the east coast and headed west and was when we saw college assistant coaches leaving to run franchise leagues for 3D in major markets. Which spawned even more like 91, True, LIExpress....

The idea was, stay on your rec team and play Saturday games, then come play for your select team on Sundays.....the Select Clubs where promising games only on Sunday's...to avoid conflict. That chipped away and chipped away and chipped away at the rec scene, where parents and kids had to ultimately make a choice....pick one b/c we can no longer do both.

Then became the increased access to fields as the league grew, and if memory serves me, AACty was no longer allowing outside clubs to use their fields. Someone had a contact with HOCO and the flood gate opened breathing continued life.

Moms and Dads that are ex players or would be coaches, are going to gravitate to Club Scenes b/c of the competitive nature and more opportunities for johnny and jill to get a foot in the door and a major private school and ultimately college opportunity.

In short, I believe the toothpaste is out of the tube.

Another new scene that has recently flared up is 'academy' style businesses. Not necessarily a team/club based model, but come to us for instructional time, like music lessons and we will teach you child what they are not getting at a team practice....much like a tutor. These have shown to be quite lucrative and often lead to yet another Select Club that provides teams for competition at showcases.

IMO, all the above is a detriment to the sport as a whole, b/c it only caters to families with the discretionary income to spend for these often outrageously priced clubs and academies.

When we where in the AACty league, the player fee was something like $80-100 for the spring, plus uniforms, which covered official fees. It has not changed much in the last 12 years. SEE HERE

I can't speak for the peculiarities of the HOCO situation, but I was coaching rec in the years '97-'07 in northwest Baltimore, Towsontowne to be specific.
Bunch of similar rec programs, from Kelly Post to Belair to...and we went through a similar dynamic as described.

I began by running clinic for the 4-5 year olds when my son was that age, then moved with him to each level, typically as an assistant coach as I liked working with the kids but less the administrative and political aspects...I let buddies who wanted that role take that lead. I did take a lead role in our work with the Positive Coaching Alliance.

We practiced and played games internally, typical 4-6 teams per age group, evenly divided 'talent', almost entirely dads coaching, but high level experience. A couple of weeknights and Saturday mornings. The pressure came quickly to have a travel team, and then multiple travel teams at various levels of C, B, A, AA...these teams played on Sundays only. Lots of politics as to which kids made each level and which dad would coach that team...tough on dads whose son was not on the A, had to coach the B, worse the C...competitive animals all.

The select teams would play beyond the regular spring season for a tournament or two, all very local. As the boys got older, the pressure on all these dynamics grew heavier. I was slightly clueless as to what selection for an 'all-star' team might mean and didn't engage in the politics, and my son wasn't an athlete who stood out as 'best' on any team and my aspirations for him were thus low, but he was very serious about understanding the game and being a great teammate, so he progressed up the ladder with a core group of the best players.

We moved to non-dad coach when they got to middle school level, with outside selectors for the top teams, which took some of the personal pressure off but the 'serious' parents were pretty intense. So, when the clubs began to offer a summer opportunity to augment the spring, the serious parents jumped and took their kids to tryouts etc...we didn't do that, but he was fortunate to have a newly formed club, Trilogy, create a team with the original nucleus of his Gilman classmates and some other top kids from area schools. coach was an assistant at Gilman, another was assistant at Calvert Hall, etc. They promised to only do a limited number of tournaments in the summer...that later was augmented by. a couple in November.

Meanwhile, other clubs were pushing for practices nearly year round, crowding out the rec leagues...parents began to just commit to club at earlier an earlier ages...indeed, way more expensive.

There wasn't much 'academy' stuff at that point, but just the beginnings..eg we did a "goalie clinic" at Towsontowne, but no charge. But as the boys got older, late middle and into HS, there was definitely an emphasis on additional training, speed, strength and sport specific...we found a guy who ran a little gym, mostly lax, girls and boys, and it was a great environment for my son...he ended up working there, training other kids, initially younger, but then even older kids...which made his own training free.

But this stuff is expensive otherwise.

I agree that this has important ramifications for the accessibility to the sport that the rec programs provided...it's likely to constrain growth significantly.

[steel_hop]

Looks like it isn't talk anymore. NFL just issued a press release with rules and guidelines. https://www.usalacrosse.com/news-media- ... ation-boys

About time. Also the correct way to do it. HS can have holdbacks but at the youth level you have to play with your peers. The 15 month window seems like a good compromise to allow for the summer birthdays where parents hold back kids from entering kindergartner before they are ready. For example, my youngest is a summer birthday. He went into kindergarten with his peers but we probably should have held him back for a year - he was academically ready but socially wasn't quite there. So i can see parents dealing with those situations. This also prevents the kid whose a September birthday and already the oldest kid in the class from being held back a year and could essentially be 2 years older than other kids.

[Laxboy78]

I like it as well. Think the 15 month window is perfect. Thought it was funny to see Laxachusetts in the promo video since they are filled with reclasses.

[steel_hop]

I like it as well. Think the 15 month window is perfect. Thought it was funny to see Laxachusetts in the promo video since they are filled with reclasses.

I was talking with a friend that made me a little downcast about the proposal. He said it was NLF's view and wanting to implement the new rules, he said that we need to see how various organizations undertake the rules like whether tournaments would implement age verification or whether something like HOCO (which does quasi NCAA rules) implement age verification to see if it sticks. He raised good points but I think this is exactly what is needed.

[runrussellrun]

As the father of a kid who was young for his class and spent years playing summer/fall events against players who were 24+ months older, I am pretty biased against the current play-down/reclass racket.

This sounds like a step in the right direction, but the club lacrosse scene exists to please wealthy parents and college coaches ... and those folks will do just about anything to secure the meanest advantage for their desperately average progeny/team.


My son was also typically the youngest on the team. I think it will be great for youth. Especially the Howard County Parks and Rec league. No more 8th graders driving themselves to games early so more parking for all.

I am not sure why college coaches would care about age v grade based. According to IL this is supported by the NLF to keep HS grade based. College coaches will attend these events no matter how they are set up. b/c they are paid They will also evaluate players at showcases, prospect days, all star teams. None of these are age based. I think by HS it does not matter. What should a 2023 player compete in this fall? Most teams end summer prior to Senior year so if events want to have combined brackets or group teams together I think that would be fine. With later recruiting I do not see it as an issue with grouping by grade as it would be more efficient for the coaches.

[Laxxal22]

I like it as well. Think the 15 month window is perfect.

Makes sense. We've all got enough anecdotes to know physical development at that age isn't 100% tied to the number of days you've been on the planet, but age restrictions will at least allow any middle school man children out there to play without accusations of a double reclass instead of just early onset puberty.

I imagine the first/youngest class of the high school division of club will always be quite large and a bit of a logjam because of this decision. A lot of boys who do reclass - whether they do it in middle school or simply know they plan to PG - will end up playing an additional summer, and probably opt to play at the post 8th grade level twice.

[kramerica.inc]

In Elementary and Middle school it's really a safety issue.

This is a interesting account:

https://twitter.com/agegaplacrosse/stat ... 5028689926

[Hoxwurth]

In Elementary and Middle school it's really a safety issue.

This is a interesting account:

https://twitter.com/agegaplacrosse/stat ... 5028689926

Can confirm that March seems to be the point where private school boy parents start to consider the redshirt year without regard to lacrosse specifically. Think the widespread redshirting will ultimately make the 15-month window a 12-month window in practice. They really should have gone with an August 1 for the school year.

[MDlaxfan76]

Great to see this finally happening.

Love to see this extended into HS club ball as well. Limiting the playing down effort...

I do think that "playing up" should be allowed; is it?

In 8th grade on, my son played on a team made up of two classes of kids who played a full year older than the older class. Only losses in the years playing up were to the very best at the older class level, and close games. But winning nearly all games in the toughest tournaments, top division, in the Maryland, PA, NJ region, with top New England, NY, and further afield coming to those tourneys.

Great experience as it was much more competitive for them than had they played 'on grade', even at top division. I don't think any of them were more than a month or at most two turning 19 before graduation, though several would have been 19 before starting college, but then the bulk were more like my son and wouldn't turn 18 until fall or winter of freshman college season. And the younger class a year younger still...so, for many of them, playing two years/classes older. The first couple of years my son's classmates were the younger class, then that coalesced with about a third of the team being from the class behind them and the older class on other teams.

I'd like to see full transparency on every roster as to birth month and year.

[Farfromgeneva]

In Elementary and Middle school it's really a safety issue.

This is a interesting account:

https://twitter.com/agegaplacrosse/stat ... 5028689926

Can confirm that March seems to be the point where private school boy parents start to consider the redshirt year without regard to lacrosse specifically. Think the widespread redshirting will ultimately make the 15-month window a 12-month window in practice. They really should have gone with an August 1 for the school year.

August 1 school year commencement sucks.

Signed,

A transplant parent in the south

[MA Lax Fan]

I'd like to see full transparency on every roster as to birth month and year.

Yup

[Laxxal22]

I'd like to see full transparency on every roster as to birth month and year.

Yup

I'd like to see it for fairness/disincentivizing playing down through shame, but also to cut down on the hyperbole of (my own hyperbole incoming) "Everyone on the other team was 25 while nobody on our team had turned 11 yet" dad anecdotes.

[Hoxwurth]

I do think that "playing up" should be allowed; is it?

In 8th grade on, my son played on a team made up of two classes of kids who played a full year older than the older class. Only losses in the years playing up were to the very best at the older class level, and close games. But winning nearly all games in the toughest tournaments, top division, in the Maryland, PA, NJ region, with top New England, NY, and further afield coming to those tourneys.

I'd like to see full transparency on every roster as to birth month and year.

In one youth soccer league near me, the team posts each kid's birthday. No reason lacrosse teams can't do the same.

In my part of the world, academic redshirting is so prevalent that a decent AA team (think the year was around 2030) lost 6 starters that had to move up. That strikes me as insane. These kids were not held back for athletic purposes. Their parents held them back in kindergarten for more general purposes. These are prototypical lacrosse parents and they are far more competitive than soccer parents.

As for playing up, I think it's allowed. That same team combined lower ages to field an additional team. They had enough folks for three teams between two years and combined the bottom third of each tryout group to form a third team.

August 1 school year commencement sucks.

Signed,

A transplant parent in the south

Fair enough. I'm just glad they drew a line somewhere. Some kid will always be unlucky.

[MDlaxfan76]

I do think that "playing up" should be allowed; is it?

In 8th grade on, my son played on a team made up of two classes of kids who played a full year older than the older class. Only losses in the years playing up were to the very best at the older class level, and close games. But winning nearly all games in the toughest tournaments, top division, in the Maryland, PA, NJ region, with top New England, NY, and further afield coming to those tourneys.

I'd like to see full transparency on every roster as to birth month and year.

In one youth soccer league near me, the team posts each kid's birthday. No reason lacrosse teams can't do the same.

In my part of the world, academic redshirting is so prevalent that a decent AA team (think the year was around 2030) lost 6 starters that had to move up. That strikes me as insane. These kids were not held back for athletic purposes. Their parents held them back in kindergarten for more general purposes. These are prototypical lacrosse parents and they are far more competitive than soccer parents.

As for playing up, I think it's allowed. That same team combined lower ages to field an additional team. They had enough folks for three teams between two years and combined the bottom third of each tryout group to form a third team.

August 1 school year commencement sucks.

Signed,

A transplant parent in the south

Fair enough. I'm just glad they drew a line somewhere. Some kid will always be unlucky.

I'm a little confused by the bolded.
I agree, no reason at least the birth month and year can't be posted...a football league my son was in almost 2 decades ago required birth certificate as well as pre-season weigh-in for eligibility at various levels of play. Not a problem, had to produce it or couldn't play.

But the bolded part: are you saying that it was wrong ("insane") for these older kids to be moved up because they were older, held back not for athletics but rather academics? And yet you're saying these are "far more competitive" "prototypical" lacrosse parents...? Or was it "insane" there were so many older kids on that AA team?

Just looking for explanation, not arguing.

[Farfromgeneva]

I do think that "playing up" should be allowed; is it?

In 8th grade on, my son played on a team made up of two classes of kids who played a full year older than the older class. Only losses in the years playing up were to the very best at the older class level, and close games. But winning nearly all games in the toughest tournaments, top division, in the Maryland, PA, NJ region, with top New England, NY, and further afield coming to those tourneys.

I'd like to see full transparency on every roster as to birth month and year.

In one youth soccer league near me, the team posts each kid's birthday. No reason lacrosse teams can't do the same.

In my part of the world, academic redshirting is so prevalent that a decent AA team (think the year was around 2030) lost 6 starters that had to move up. That strikes me as insane. These kids were not held back for athletic purposes. Their parents held them back in kindergarten for more general purposes. These are prototypical lacrosse parents and they are far more competitive than soccer parents.

As for playing up, I think it's allowed. That same team combined lower ages to field an additional team. They had enough folks for three teams between two years and combined the bottom third of each tryout group to form a third team.

August 1 school year commencement sucks.

Signed,

A transplant parent in the south

Fair enough. I'm just glad they drew a line somewhere. Some kid will always be unlucky.

I'm not even talking sports/lacrosse just managing the calendar down here now and general.

[Hoxwurth]

But the bolded part: are you saying that it was wrong ("insane") for these older kids to be moved up because they were older, held back not for athletics but rather academics? And yet you're saying these are "far more competitive" "prototypical" lacrosse parents...? Or was it "insane" there were so many older kids on that AA team?

Just looking for explanation, not arguing.

I think it's insane boys graduate high school at 19 regularly now regardless of the reason. I understand why parents do it, however. The fact that there were six of ten starters were too old shows how widespread it was. All of those boys will graduate high school at 19. At my high school years ago, there was only one, and he was considered weird. (Turns out he was a good dude.)

As for parent competitiveness, it seems to align with family income. So lacrosse > soccer > basketball = football. It doesn't spill over to the country club sports in the same way. There are more holdbacks for lacrosse followed by basketball. Soccer seems to have the opposite issue where young kids are competing to move up.

Happy to explain more if I'm not being clear. Didn't think you were argumentative at all.

[MDlaxfan76]

But the bolded part: are you saying that it was wrong ("insane") for these older kids to be moved up because they were older, held back not for athletics but rather academics? And yet you're saying these are "far more competitive" "prototypical" lacrosse parents...? Or was it "insane" there were so many older kids on that AA team?

Just looking for explanation, not arguing.

I think it's insane boys graduate high school at 19 regularly now regardless of the reason. I understand why parents do it, however. The fact that there were six of ten starters were too old shows how widespread it was. All of those boys will graduate high school at 19. At my high school years ago, there was only one, and he was considered weird. (Turns out he was a good dude.)

As for parent competitiveness, it seems to align with family income. So lacrosse > soccer > basketball = football. It doesn't spill over to the country club sports in the same way. There are more holdbacks for lacrosse followed by basketball. Soccer seems to have the opposite issue where young kids are competing to move up.

Happy to explain more if I'm not being clear. Didn't think you were argumentative at all.

Got it.

At least when I was paying closer attention, most of those who were 19 turned 19 within a month or two of graduation...very rare to see it mid-year. And most of those who one might consider 'older' were summer babies, 'held back' through extra pre-school year instead of pushed ahead and young for class above. Seems like there's more of those happening, and more attention to it is causing more of the 'competitive' parents to make that decision.

and yeah, for many of these parents it's a maybe $20k decision to do another pre-K year in private school.

And it does seem to be a factor...the 3 most heavily recruited lax players in my son's '12 HS class were all summer babies, June, July. The next two, including my son, were fall babies. The lesser recruited were fall and winter, one summer.

But as I wrote earlier, this particular set of kids "played up" throughout the MS and HS years, competing regularly against kids in one or two classes above. It wasn't playing down in that sense.

[Farfromgeneva]

But the bolded part: are you saying that it was wrong ("insane") for these older kids to be moved up because they were older, held back not for athletics but rather academics? And yet you're saying these are "far more competitive" "prototypical" lacrosse parents...? Or was it "insane" there were so many older kids on that AA team?

Just looking for explanation, not arguing.

I think it's insane boys graduate high school at 19 regularly now regardless of the reason. I understand why parents do it, however. The fact that there were six of ten starters were too old shows how widespread it was. All of those boys will graduate high school at 19. At my high school years ago, there was only one, and he was considered weird. (Turns out he was a good dude.)

As for parent competitiveness, it seems to align with family income. So lacrosse > soccer > basketball = football. It doesn't spill over to the country club sports in the same way. There are more holdbacks for lacrosse followed by basketball. Soccer seems to have the opposite issue where young kids are competing to move up.

Happy to explain more if I'm not being clear. Didn't think you were argumentative at all.

Got it.

At least when I was paying closer attention, most of those who were 19 turned 19 within a month or two of graduation...very rare to see it mid-year. And most of those who one might consider 'older' were summer babies, 'held back' through extra pre-school year instead of pushed ahead and young for class above. Seems like there's more of those happening, and more attention to it is causing more of the 'competitive' parents to make that decision.

and yeah, for many of these parents it's a maybe $20k decision to do another pre-K year in private school.

And it does seem to be a factor...the 3 most heavily recruited lax players in my son's '12 HS class were all summer babies, June, July. The next two, including my son, were fall babies. The lesser recruited were fall and winter, one summer.

But as I wrote earlier, this particular set of kids "played up" throughout the MS and HS years, competing regularly against kids in one or two classes above. It wasn't playing down in that sense.

As you know I’m a pre k “holdback” or repeat year parent with my son being 8/23 birthday and school starting down here 8/1 it felt weird when in the first year of pre K 4-5 kids were turning 5yrs old 1-3 weeks before my son turned 4 socially and emotionally. His sister is 22mo younger with a June Bday (day before mine which rendered my bday irrelevant for the rest of time) but only 1yr apart in school now so it’ll be interesting as they get older to watch how they handle it being on the older and younger side of their classes.

Not quite $20k for the extra year, know I was subsidizing my wifes work income back then vs stay at home as a mom but more like $2,500mo total with like $1,100/mo for pre K in the split so call it an extra $12k or so. Think it made sense for our family but I actually was leaning against repeating pre K exactly because I loathe the super parents who hold their kids back or reclass as teenagers and think that’s doing a disservice to their kids long run. But pulled the trigger on it anyway.

[MDlaxfan76]

But the bolded part: are you saying that it was wrong ("insane") for these older kids to be moved up because they were older, held back not for athletics but rather academics? And yet you're saying these are "far more competitive" "prototypical" lacrosse parents...? Or was it "insane" there were so many older kids on that AA team?

Just looking for explanation, not arguing.

I think it's insane boys graduate high school at 19 regularly now regardless of the reason. I understand why parents do it, however. The fact that there were six of ten starters were too old shows how widespread it was. All of those boys will graduate high school at 19. At my high school years ago, there was only one, and he was considered weird. (Turns out he was a good dude.)

As for parent competitiveness, it seems to align with family income. So lacrosse > soccer > basketball = football. It doesn't spill over to the country club sports in the same way. There are more holdbacks for lacrosse followed by basketball. Soccer seems to have the opposite issue where young kids are competing to move up.

Happy to explain more if I'm not being clear. Didn't think you were argumentative at all.

Got it.

At least when I was paying closer attention, most of those who were 19 turned 19 within a month or two of graduation...very rare to see it mid-year. And most of those who one might consider 'older' were summer babies, 'held back' through extra pre-school year instead of pushed ahead and young for class above. Seems like there's more of those happening, and more attention to it is causing more of the 'competitive' parents to make that decision.

and yeah, for many of these parents it's a maybe $20k decision to do another pre-K year in private school.

And it does seem to be a factor...the 3 most heavily recruited lax players in my son's '12 HS class were all summer babies, June, July. The next two, including my son, were fall babies. The lesser recruited were fall and winter, one summer.

But as I wrote earlier, this particular set of kids "played up" throughout the MS and HS years, competing regularly against kids in one or two classes above. It wasn't playing down in that sense.

As you know I’m a pre k “holdback” or repeat year parent with my son being 8/23 birthday and school starting down here 8/1 it felt weird when in the first year of pre K 4-5 kids were turning 5yrs old 1-3 weeks before my son turned 4 socially and emotionally. His sister is 22mo younger with a June Bday (day before mine which rendered my bday irrelevant for the rest of time) but only 1yr apart in school now so it’ll be interesting as they get older to watch how they handle it being on the older and younger side of their classes.

Not quite $20k for the extra year, know I was subsidizing my wifes work income back then vs stay at home as a mom but more like $2,500mo total with like $1,100/mo for pre K in the split so call it an extra $12k or so. Think it made sense for our family but I actually was leaning against repeating pre K exactly because I loathe the super parents who hold their kids back or reclass as teenagers and think that’s doing a disservice to their kids long run. But pulled the trigger on it anyway.

I'm certainly not an opponent. I went to 'Pilot Class" as did my sister, my son, her kids...her son she held back an extra year from the twin daughter as the daughter was clearly very swift in every aspect whereas the son was clearly going to have learning issues (great young man now, but struggled). Made us on the older side but not a full year.

Yeah, maybe $12k in the shorthaul, but when you add up the tuition increases year to year over the following 12 of secondary...adds up. Might be more than $20k overall...and of course, in some jurisdictions even the pre-k year can be $20k +.