I was thinking, the rule in GoF about having to be 17 or older to compete was pretty stupid. If every student in the school put their name in and let's say Colin Creevy was chosen to compete even if he was only 13, wouldn't that mean he was the most likly student to win and thus live even more so than a 17 year old?

 

I think the rule was less about logic and more about calming parents' fears of their children being in harms way. Age 17 seems to be the age when you are considered an adult and so the student at that point can make their own decisions.

In other words, its just a stipulation they implemented so the tournament is approved by whatever council or department. There is no real truth to it, but it was done because of people's perception.

 

It's not that stupid a rule. You really think a 13/14 year old kid is gonna know how beat a dragon without pissing themselves and running for cover? Or deal with a big ass spider? Or fight their way past murderous Merpeople?

Harry would not have won that competition if Moody hadn't been there to help him along. He would have had his ass handed to him by the dragon, drowned in the lake, and then been the last one to enter the maze, and would have been accosted by all sorts of magical traps. Fleur, who was 17, couldn't even complete the second task.

The rule wasn't about picking the best overall, it was about picking the best from a group who had had enough magical training to know what they were doing. Tossing 13 year olds into a competition that was cancelled because the death toll was too high is something that even Umbridge wouldn't have done.

 

No offense, but I think you're kind of missing the point. The goblet wouldn't have selected a younger person unless they could handle it. It selects the person most suitable to compete based on merit alone, not age. Granted, it's not probable at all that someone younger and less experienced would stand a chance against older competitors, but it is possible. Who knows? Without the age restriction, if Harry were entered he might have been picked instead of Cedric rather than in addition to Cedric. Not likely, but entirely possible.

 

Alright, I'll give you that one. I don't know what good it would do to complain to an inanimate object that also conveniently 'constitutes a binding magical contract,' but that would make people that much more unwilling to allow it to even take place.

 

I think most of the wizarding world would kill themselves the day that a second year is better suited to the Triwizard Tournament than a seventh year. At least I hope they would.

 

It would make you wonder about the state of the wizarding world if a 12 year old is the best suited, out of many older selections, to take part in a competition that was canceled because of the mounting death toll.

 

One way to look at it is that they have made such improvements in their educational system that the younger years are learning in a greater pace than the older students who have been stunted by the earlier less effective methods.

When you think about it, back when they had the tournament fairly regularly the schools that lost the competition would probably looked for ways to gain the edge for next time and if a younger student is picked they may want to look at what has been done differently with their age group so that they continue to do it and by the time the next tournament comes around an older student is chosen who has the same comparative benefit.

In fact, I would bet that they would keep a record of the stats of the students, which house they came from, which voluntary classes they chose, what kind of extracurriculars like Quidditch they participate in and even what position they play. I could see Slytherin or Durmstrang putting pressure on select students to follow that pattern in order to boost their chances of having the best champion.

 

People do, have to set these tournaments up, and make the rules, they could complain to Dumbledore, Crouch etc.