Opinion: Is 13 Too Young for 'X Factor' Contestants?

Astro, Rachel Crow, Drew... they all have three things in common. They're all tremendously talented, they're all very young, and they've all cried on national television (two of them pretty hard).

All throughout this first season of "The X Factor," creator and judge/mentor Simon Cowell has been touting the decision to open up his singing competition show to contestants as young as 12 years old. For a while, it looked as though it was the right move: the 13-year-old Rachel Crow and 14-year-old Drew and Astro were all performing at a talent and maturity level well beyond their years.

In fact, almost every time Crow performed, Cowell would not how she was the reason he was glad they lowered the age limit, so that talent like hers could be in the competition.

But there's a downside, and it has reared its head in the last few weeks.

It started with Astro, who was in tears and almost refused to perform when he was placed in the bottom two. Then came Drew, who sobbed so loudly when she was eliminated that host Steve Jones couldn't get a statement from her. This week, we saw a similar scene as Crow was eliminated due to the audience vote, and collapsed to the ground, sobbing.

I'm not saying this doesn't make for good television. Rarely do contestants show that level of emotion on reality competition shows. But the reason why these three showed so much emotion is the same reason why it's wrong: they're too young for this. Yes, from a producer's standpoint it's going to be more interesting to have a contestant crying than simply nodding and saying "hey, thanks, I had fun." But to break the heart of a 13-year-old kid to do it seems unnecessarily cruel.

What do you think? Should kids as young as Rachel, Drew and Astro be allowed on "The X Factor," or should the show raise the age requirements to 16, as "American Idol" does?