All-Star From Courtney Pope - "the View From Backstage At The Naccc..."

[mstealtoyou]

That's true I did say that.

Let's count how many.

1 boy came to CEA and is now back at CAC
2 Youth age kids came last season
1 this season

And, I don't know that it was because CAC didn't offer a Y5 I haven't asked them but it very well could be true.
Did I forget anyone? Help me Susan!

 

[CA_kayla]

That's true I did say that.

Do you stand by that statement? and, how may kids do you know that have left to join the Y5 team?

 

[CharlotteASMom]

Let's count how many.

1 boy came to CEA and is now back at CAC
2 Youth age kids came last season
1 this season

And, I don't know that it was because CAC didn't offer a Y5 I haven't asked them but it very well could be true.
Did I forget anyone? Help me Susan!

You would know as well as me. Missy I wont personally fight with you on a public forum. We have too much good history for that. Please feel free to call me if you want to discuss it.

 

[CharlotteASMom]

Do you stand by that statement? and, how may kids do you know that have left to join the Y5 team?

Yes.

 

[mstealtoyou]

You would know as well as me. Missy I wont personally fight with you on a public forum. We have too much good history for that. Please feel free to call me if you want to discuss it.

I asked for your help in case I had forgotten anybody. That's all. Nothing that I've posted has been to fight with you at all. Just clearing some things up. That's it. I'm sorry if you took it that way. Our history won't change on my side because we don't agree. I would love to call you if you promise we don't have to talk about this. LOL

 

[CharlotteASMom]

I asked for your help in case I had forgotten anybody. That's all. Nothing that I've posted has been to fight with you at all. Just clearing some things up. That's it. I'm sorry if you took it that way. Our history won't change on my side because we don't agree. I would love to call you if you promise we don't have to talk about this. LOL

Deal! LOL

 

[StarshipTrooper]

Not that I want to stick my head in the lion's mouth...but,

Here is the original proposal to get rid of youth 5. Technically it did originate here in NJ

http://usasf.net.ismmedia.com/ISM2//notesfrommeetings/L5_YouthTwo_7_24_10.pdf

Here's another one from NJ, also advocating getting rid of youth 5, but creating a Jr open instead.

http://usasf.net.ismmedia.com/ISM2//notesfrommeetings/L5_Youth_7_24_10.pdf

Here's yet another one from NJ (and the first from WC) advocating restricted tosses.

http://usasf.net.ismmedia.com/ISM2//notesfrommeetings/L5_YouthDivision_Baskets_6_2_10.pdf

Another one from WC advocating restricted tosses

http://usasf.net.ismmedia.com/ISM2//notesfrommeetings/L5_Youth_Baskets_6_3_10.pdf

Last one from WC (and last yth5 that I found) advocates restricted tumbling

http://usasf.net.ismmedia.com/ISM2//notesfrommeetings/L5_Youth_Tumbling_6_2_10.pdf

So, yes, it does look like all proposals concerning Youth 5 have come from us up here in Jersey. Have at it

From reading these rule change proposals, I think it is safe to characterize the first two as recommending elimination of the Youth L5 division and the last 3 as restrictions on the skills thrown by the Youth L5 division but keeping the division. The first 2 are by NJ gyms who I have no idea whether or not they have some association with WC or they are acting totally independently and the last 3 by the WC staff themselves. They all appear to cite questions of safety and seem to imply from my reading that there is a perception that Youth aged athletes are more susceptable to injuries due to poor progression of skill development I assume making it more likely that they at risk for injury. So I have some questions.

1. Do we have valid data about injury rates in cheerleading, especially in the all star division since this is where the rules are to be implemented?
2. Have we catergorized the injury types and calculated the actual rates? Are the injuries more likely to be due to tumbling, building or dance (you never know with how kids dance these days)
3. What are these injury rates as compared to a similar activity such as competitive gymnastics? Do they have data for safety concerning progression, teaching accredidation, etc that we can extrapoate some assumptions from?
4. What injury occured, at what age, at what level, and specifically what was the activity occuring with the injury.
5. Where and when do the injuries occur? What type of gyms, competitions, exhibitions? Are there certain gyms that have rates of injury out of the range, specifically low or high?

Instead of passing rules restrictling athletes in any particular division or level based on conjecture and assumption, how about collecting some data and make decisions based on the tried and true method of analysis. IF we can agree that cheerleading seems to have a high level of injury, why are we assuming that it is the Youth division that is the most vulnerable? And, if the rules need to be changed without any objective data, why not make the same proposed changes concerning safety for all divisions? My suspicion is that some of this is available, as insurance companies do write policies for gyms and I'll bet they have data to base their rates on for the customer. BUT, I strongly suspect that no one has done anywhere near the research to single out one specific division for these type of changes. I would charge those pushing for the changes to back their assumptions up with some objective proof that their observations or valid, and their changes will help alleviate the problem. Otherwise, it looks to me like a random act for unknown purposes, AND IT IS POSSIBLE THEY ARE WHAT THEY APPEAR TO BE ON THE SURFACE FOR SAFETY, but apparently Courtney feels differently and has expressed that opinion here, or facebook, or wherever.

Table the thing and study it and change the industry incrementally using sound analysis with appropriate time to give everyone a chance to adapt.

 

[CharlotteASMom]

Just an observation...not an argument!

A friend made me aware that many of the major gyms in the country including our own signed off on at least one if not a couple of the proposals above. It's interesting to scroll down and see who endoresed what.

 

[supertwink]

From reading these rule change proposals, I think it is safe to characterize the first two as recommending elimination of the Youth L5 division and the last 3 as restrictions on the skills thrown by the Youth L5 division but keeping the division. The first 2 are by NJ gyms who I have no idea whether or not they have some association with WC or they are acting totally independently and the last 3 by the WC staff themselves. They all appear to cite questions of safety and seem to imply from my reading that there is a perception that Youth aged athletes are more susceptable to injuries due to poor progression of skill development I assume making it more likely that they at risk for injury. So I have some questions.

1. Do we have valid data about injury rates in cheerleading, especially in the all star division since this is where the rules are to be implemented?
2. Have we catergorized the injury types and calculated the actual rates? Are the injuries more likely to be due to tumbling, building or dance (you never know with how kids dance these days)
3. What are these injury rates as compared to a similar activity such as competitive gymnastics? Do they have data for safety concerning progression, teaching accredidation, etc that we can extrapoate some assumptions from?
4. What injury occured, at what age, at what level, and specifically what was the activity occuring with the injury.
5. Where and when do the injuries occur? What type of gyms, competitions, exhibitions? Are there certain gyms that have rates of injury out of the range, specifically low or high?

Instead of passing rules restrictling athletes in any particular division or level based on conjecture and assumption, how about collecting some data and make decisions based on the tried and true method of analysis. IF we can agree that cheerleading seems to have a high level of injury, why are we assuming that it is the Youth division that is the most vulnerable? And, if the rules need to be changed without any objective data, why not make the same proposed changes concerning safety for all divisions? My suspicion is that some of this is available, as insurance companies do write policies for gyms and I'll bet they have data to base their rates on for the customer. BUT, I strongly suspect that no one has done anywhere near the research to single out one specific division for these type of changes. I would charge those pushing for the changes to back their assumptions up with some objective proof that their observations or valid, and their changes will help alleviate the problem. Otherwise, it looks to me like a random act for unknown purposes, AND IT IS POSSIBLE THEY ARE WHAT THEY APPEAR TO BE ON THE SURFACE FOR SAFETY, but apparently Courtney feels differently and has expressed that opinion here, or facebook, or wherever.

Table the thing and study it and change the industry incrementally using sound analysis with appropriate time to give everyone a chance to adapt.

These other gyms in NJ acted completely independently and have no association with World Cup.

 

[0hs0electriK]

These other gyms in NJ acted completely independently and have no association with World Cup.

Correct, WC does not own every New Jersey gym. The assimilation needs to stop being made!

 

[CA_kayla]

Let's count how many.

1 boy came to CEA and is now back at CAC
2 Youth age kids came last season
1 this season

And, I don't know that it was because CAC didn't offer a Y5 I haven't asked them but it very well could be true.
Did I forget anyone? Help me Susan!

Thanks, your numbers are correct however none (except maybe the boy who left 3-4 years ago) left to specifically be on the y5 team.

CharlotteASMom, Let's stick to the facts when making a point, it adds validity to your argument. Otherwise it makes you come across as bias and bitter. JMO

 

[CharlotteASMom]

Why is it biased and bitter to say kids left our program because we couldn't give them what they needed? For you to have come from our program where your daughter excelled I am surprised at your reaction.

 

[cheercurl]

Ok...here is my take on this and please feel free to clarify any points I may be missing or are inaccurate because I am coming into this a little late in the game.

We have a new proposal coming from a big "NJ gym" and (to be fair maybe others as well but I would really like to know who the "other supporters are") that we eliminate Youth 5 because it is dangerous and taxing on young bodies to compete/practice at that skill level BUT it was not dangerous for years when their youth 5 team was dominating the field???. Now that a bigger gym with a huge talent pool has the potential to dominate "NJ gym" thinks it would be best to eliminate this level or maybe restrict youth 5???. Umm...no matter how you slice it this sounds a little self serving from a "person" who is actually powerful enough to maybe pull this off. Scary stuff, no one person in this industry should have that kind of influence.

Am I getting this right?

 

[0hs0electriK]

Ok...here is my take on this and please feel free to clarify any points I may be missing or are inaccurate because I am coming into this a little late in the game.

We have a new proposal coming from a big "NJ gym" and (to be fair maybe others as well but I would really like to know who the "other supporters are") that we eliminate Youth 5 because it is dangerous and taxing on young bodies to compete/practice at that skill level BUT it was not dangerous for years when their youth 5 team was dominating the field???. Now that a bigger gym with a huge talent pool has the potential to dominate "NJ gym" thinks it would be best to eliminate this level or maybe restrict youth 5???. Umm...no matter how you slice it this sounds a little self serving from a "person" who is actually powerful enough to maybe pull this off. Scary stuff, no one person in this industry should have that kind of influence.

Am I getting this right?

Not at all, you are going off accusations. No one knows what is going on in WC coaches minds and I find it ridiculous that everyone is acting like they know this. Also, feel free to call people out on here if you are going to try to "hint" at them.

 

[Level5Mom]

I thought it was already established that WC was in favor of restriction, not elimination?