"Apparently, parents have been known to hold their 10 and 11-year-old children back in school to help boost those rankings."

Actually, they were told to do that in case they became NBA material.

The higher rankings were just an ancillary result of the kid being one year older than players of the same academic grade. The rankings were not a reason in and of itself to hold them back.

Since David Stern changed the rule, they no longer gain a competitive advantage by being held back so parents are less likely to do it now.

It's unfortunate that some parents hold their kids back for athletic reasons. I actually know of two parents that have done so already. The kids that were held back in these cases do not start on the basketball teams and are being made fun of during school. It's also unfair to the kids that are playing in their right age groups. Most sixth graders are twelve years old when they enter. A kid who was held back and now is thirteen is more than likely better developed physically than an average sixth grader.

The person who is suffering the most in this situation is the kid being held back. I could not imagine the pressure on a kid who was held back because of athletics. This kid has to understand he would have a hard time getting a scholarship if he didn't get one athletically. What happens when the kid that gets held back doesn't get an athletic scholarship? Will colleges accept a kid that was held back? Ryan Zuver

I find it disgusting that parents would hold their child back academically because of athletics. The child's psychological state has to be affected. The intense pressure to succeed athletically has to reflect in the child's overall performance. Besides, the chances of earning a Division I scholarship are slim.

To choose athletics over academics de-emphasizes the importance of education to the child. Although intellectual maturity might help in some instances, physical maturity might cause him to be the subject of ridicule from his classmates. In Little League baseball, there are age restrictions, and rightfully so. We need to get back to the basics of success based on hard-work, with everyone playing on an equal playing field.

Bradley Fox

It is ridiculous that parents even try to market their sons and daughters at the age of 10 and 11. At this point in time, children should still be playing to have nothing more than fun and develop their skills. It is too often that parents try to intervene with their child's sports. I say let the children play and have more say in what sports they play.

Academics should always come first especially at such a young age. I am one to agree that athletics are very important because they help develop leadership and teamwork but it is a very extreme measure to hold your child back a year in school in order to be higher ranked? The thought that pre-teens are being ranked amongst their peers is absurd and should definitely be abolished.