Changes in the Big D.

[King]

It means that the support for the change is both overwhelming and intransigent. It is clear that is what is going to happen unless some ground swell of opposition arises in the cheer community from owners, coaches and gyms that apparently are already well represented at the meetings and solidly in the camp of changing the rule. Take it for what it is worth, believe me or not, but don't bet against it with any more than pocket change.

So it is not said and done, but if I act like it is and post like it is maybe some random grassroots type of uprising will stop it in its tracks?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Ariel]

So it is not said and done, but if I act like it is and post like it is maybe some random grassroots type of uprising will stop it in its tracks?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Can we try?

 

[King]

Its up for a vote in January. And, honestly, getting extremely fired up about it now will just die out come October. If you really want to stop this, propose the other popular alternative, 30 for large, and start campaigning late Nov early Dec. Causing a riot now will make everyone complacent by early Jan.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Mclovin]

Wait, so just because the coaches and owners that attend these meetings overwhelmingly support it doesn't mean it will get voted in. From what I can tell, in years past the final decisions made TENDED to side with the majority voting. There are gonna be a whole lot of small gyms completely against this. I think those small gym coaches/owners just don't speak up at these meetings for fear of "rocking the boat" so to speak. I bet when it comes to voting (in private), they'll have a voice.

From my understanding, there has been an proposal for changing the max for large teams to 30 and keeping small at 20 AS WELL AS having a universal size of 24. Both of those proposals will be brought to the table to be voted on in January. Why are we assuming that its the "24" that will pass?? I get that you have "connections" allgoodpeople, but I don't think those connections can predict the future or determine how all these coaches will feel 5 months from now. JMO

 

[SharkDad]

This whole thread makes my dorsal fin ache.

Don't forget there are a few steps before January.

There are still some regional meetings to be had, then there will be a meeting of the NACCC where they vote and decide which proposals will get voted on in January. The ENTIRE USASF membership gets to vote, not just the one's who could afford to travel to ATL this week.

Regardless of what anyone thinks is a "done deal" if all the gym owners and USASF membership exercises their voting rights, either option is still a possiblity.

 

[CGAcheer]

24... too big for small gyms and too small for Big Gyms (there's the campaign slogan)

I'm totally against 24, despite it being a very good stunting number. There just isn't enough flexibility
What if you end up with 26 kids? do you send the 2 kids away, do you split it into 2 teams of 13 that will compete against each other, do you find a boy just so that you can be coed? Really ending up with 12 to 18 or 25 to 38 kids within the same age and level creates problems

if we go with 20/30 and you end up with 26, you can still be competitive in the large division, or you can split it and be ok in the small division. If you end up with with just over 30 you can split it and be competitive in the small if you go just over 20 you can still be competitive with the teams with 30

20 for Small and 30 for large will work for everyone

24 will also cause more small teams to combine than it will cause large teams to split, thus reducing the overall number of teams which will decrease competition

 

[King]

This whole thread makes my dorsal fin ache.

Don't forget there are a few steps before January.

There are still some regional meetings to be had, then there will be a meeting of the NACCC where they vote and decide which proposals will get voted on in January. The ENTIRE USASF membership gets to vote, not just the one's who could afford to travel to ATL this week.

Regardless of what anyone thinks is a "done deal" if all the gym owners and USASF membership exercises their voting rights, either option is still a possiblity.

Id take you more seriously if you had a frickin' laser beam attached to your head.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[SharkDad]

Don't test me. . . "I'm well connected"

 

[SharkDad]

I mis-spoke. Here is the process after the Regional Meetings are over:

In NovemberÂ*subcommittees of the Â*USASF Rules Committee and NACCC Executive Committee will meet andÂ*narrow the slate.Â* Â*In January a live webcast is held to discuss the final suggestions and voting takes place online; available to all members.

The USASF rules committee will approve the NACCC's recommendations. They can add, change, or overturn a NACCC recommendation, but that doesn't happen often.

Posted from my BlackBerry using BerryBlab

 

[ACEDAD]

I mean my sources tell me it's a done deal. Mark it down, it will happen. So we'll see.

I have all kinds of respect for you and your family, so I can't tell you how much this whole thread and your comment that "it passed" bothers me.

I've been working for years to improve the transparency in this sport. Whether the limit goes to 24, stays where it is or anything in between really has no impact on my life. But I do have a lot of years invested and do want to see the sport continue to grow and have a positive impact on ever growing numbers of athletes.

The perception of secrecy and conspiracy in All Stars is almost overwhelming and has been for years. We've been able to gain several small steps and a few large ones in the last few years. There is still a long way to go, but we're getting people in all phases of All Star to see that transparency is a very good and powerful thing.

Then you post this and much of the work just crumbles.

Doesn't matter whether it's true or a misunderstanding or something else.

If it actually passes in January, even if 100% legitimate, your statement will reinforce all the conspiracy theorists that just sit and complain and throw bricks at everything.

Now they have another brick.

 

[Mclovin]

I mis-spoke. Here is the process after the Regional Meetings are over:

In NovemberÂ*subcommittees of the Â*USASF Rules Committee and NACCC Executive Committee will meet andÂ*narrow the slate.Â* Â*In January a live webcast is held to discuss the final suggestions and voting takes place online; available to all members.

The USASF rules committee will approve the NACCC's recommendations. They can add, change, or overturn a NACCC recommendation, but that doesn't happen often.

Posted from my BlackBerry using BerryBlab

So the NACCC makes recommendations based on the voting by all USASF members, then the USASF rules committee approves those recommendations (for the most part). Where does the NAB "approval" come in to play? Because I believe that is the meeting that allgoodpeople is speaking of when saying "it passed". Does the NAB play any role besides making recommendations to be voted upon by all USASF members?

 

[ACEDAD]

So the NACCC makes recommendations based on the voting by all USASF members, then the USASF rules committee approves those recommendations (for the most part). Where does the NAB "approval" come in to play? Because I believe that is the meeting that allgoodpeople is speaking of when saying "it passed". Does the NAB play any role besides making recommendations to be voted upon by all USASF members?

The NAB met yesterday. It does not make rules recommendations. The USASF Rules committee is meeting today (and I believe is still meeting at this moment) and are discussing these issues. They will meet again in November to "narrow the slate" as SharkDad posted.

 

[Mclovin]

The NAB met yesterday. It does not make rules recommendations. The USASF Rules committee is meeting today (and I believe is still meeting at this moment) and are discussing these issues. They will meet again in November to "narrow the slate" as SharkDad posted.

Ok, I didn't think so. So the meeting where "it passed" was the USASF Rules Committee that is meeting today. I didn't realize they were meeting today. So he's saying the rules committee is already approving something before any USASF members get to vote on it and that's where your comment about "conspiracy theories" comes into play. Wow, I can definitely see where this could get hairy...

 

[ACEDAD]

Ok, I didn't think so. So the meeting where "it passed" was the USASF Rules Committee that is meeting today. I didn't realize they were meeting today. So he's saying the rules committee is already approving something before any USASF members get to vote on it and that's where your comment about "conspiracy theories" comes into play. Wow, I can definitely see where this could get hairy...

When I saw the comment, I texted Tegan Reeves on USASF staff. She's there. Nothing like what he mentioned happened.

 

[just_kay_today]

I'm curious if voters will be choosing between the 30/20 or the 24.....will they get to vote on which change they prefer? I still believe there are several small gyms that will vote this down. Just a gut....

Based on the videos I watched of earlier meetings, I agree. A few small gym owners expressed concerns with the proposed change in large. One mentioned that she had four teams in total. Tiny, mini, youth, and a senior team, I believe. Her concern was what to do with the senior kids she'd be forced to cut. She has no other team for them. I thought it was a legitimate concern. I'm sure there will be other small gym owners with the same concerns.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk