All-Star Kill The Youth Division?

[newcheerdad]

I actually would want to go the other way and have smaller gaps between divisions. In most other youth sports, there's a conscious attempt to kids of the same age on a team. For example, our soccer program doesn't even promote the idea of a 11-year-old playing on a U14 team unless there's an exceptional reason to do so. And I know, especially with younger kids, that the difference between a 7 and 10-year-old is dramatic - much more than the difference between a 14 and 17-year old. So what I'd propose in a perfect world is:

Tiny (under 6)
Mini (under 8)
Youth 1 (under 10)
Youth 2 (under 12)
Junior (under 14)
Senior (under 18)

I understand the negatives to that - likely would see fewer teams in a division, smaller gyms would likely be forced to put younger kids on teams with older ones anyway.

I haven't thought about how the levels would work, but I'd say that maybe Mini maxes out at 3, Youth 1 maxes out at 4, and then Youth 2 would be the first age group that would allow level 5.

 

[KB_Legend]

It gets rid of one... More specifically it keeps tiny the same but calls it mini, then it expands the ages and turns mini youth junior senior into just youth junior senior... Unless I am confused about what the OP was suggesting

 

[Level5Mom]

KB are you referring to the suggestion above? Or to the actual rule change on the voting slate?

The voting slate has it as:
Tiny 6 and under
Mini 9 and under
Youth 12 and under
Junior 15 and under
Senior 18 and under (except level 5)

As stated on the voting slate it does not appear to eliminate a division, unless I'm just not seeing it?

 

[newcheerdad]

It gets rid of one... More specifically it keeps tiny the same but calls it mini, then it expands the ages and turns mini youth junior senior into just youth junior senior... Unless I am confused about what the OP was suggesting

That's what I thought the OP said, too.

I guess what was less clear was whether there was a floor - could you have a 5 year old on a youth team or a 9 year old on a junior team, etc. I'd be a little less concerned about the wide gaps in those age groups if you told me that I couldn't put little 5-year-old Suzie on a team (potentially) with 10-year-olds, although I guess it happens today probably.

 

[KB_Legend]

The person who started the thread proposed something different than what came up in the rules proposal

 

[Just-a-Mom]

I never understand why all the age divisions (proposed and "real") always have a maximum age, but never a minimum. I know that everyone loves to have their 9 year old moved up to Juniors but it just makes no sense to me. Like NewCheerDad said--no other sport does this. If you're an awesome 6 year old soccer player, you're just the best player on a team of other 6 year olds. You move up as you get older, not better. Then when you get to be a teenager, the teams start to divide up by skill level.

I don't think we should necessarily be getting rid of divisions, as much as we should be making kids stay in their age level. If that means we need Youth 5 so the awesome ones have a team, then we need it. But when was the last time you saw a 10-year-old on a Varsity soccer team? It's no wonder people don't take us seriously as a sport when our rules change every 5 minutes--and wouldn't be acceptable in any other sport.

But I really like the OP's proposal for Senior being 13+. And 6 and under being one division, exhibition only. With your suggestions for ages, but keep the same levels, you might be on to something!

 

[Num1Stunta]

So what you are proposing is not to consider the kid's individual skill level but age only? So if a 9 year old has level 4 skills but only has 1 gym in their town and it is a youth 1 or 2 (based on the majority of the girls skill level), they would be forced to be on a youth 1? I think that would kill cheerleading, girls would switch over to competitive gymnastics instead. Or am I misundestanding your proposal?

As far as girls being exposed to high school drama, they are not necessarily being exposed depending on the gym, how coaches run practice, and other girls. My daughter is on a Youth 2 team right now, not skilled enough for Jr/Sr however, she is the youngest of 4 kids. Her brothers are 9, 16, and 18, so she is exposed to teen talk regardless.

I think we mentioned this in another thread, but... the level 4 9 year old would have to either cheer level 1/2 and continue working her skills individually, or go to another gym. If a 9 year old plays basketball as well as a high schooler, they don't get moved onto the high school team. It goes along with trying to be respected as a sport.

 

[Num1Stunta]

That's what I thought the OP said, too.

I guess what was less clear was whether there was a floor - could you have a 5 year old on a youth team or a 9 year old on a junior team, etc. I'd be a little less concerned about the wide gaps in those age groups if you told me that I couldn't put little 5-year-old Suzie on a team (potentially) with 10-year-olds, although I guess it happens today probably.

Yes, that's exactly what the goal was... to keep the teams age-appropriate and level the playing field... no more little ones on big teams.

 

[Level5Mom]

The person who started the thread proposed something different than what came up in the rules proposal

Ok then we are talking about 2 different things. I had asked for those who voted yes on 30 why they did so....what was the benefit of it. When you answered I thought you were answering me lol.

 

[SharkDad]

I never understand why all the age divisions (proposed and "real") always have a maximum age, but never a minimum. I know that everyone loves to have their 9 year old moved up to Juniors but it just makes no sense to me. Like NewCheerDad said--no other sport does this. If you're an awesome 6 year old soccer player, you're just the best player on a team of other 6 year olds. You move up as you get older, not better. Then when you get to be a teenager, the teams start to divide up by skill level.

I don't think we should necessarily be getting rid of divisions, as much as we should be making kids stay in their age level. If that means we need Youth 5 so the awesome ones have a team, then we need it. But when was the last time you saw a 10-year-old on a Varsity soccer team? It's no wonder people don't take us seriously as a sport when our rules change every 5 minutes--and wouldn't be acceptable in any other sport.

But I really like the OP's proposal for Senior being 13+. And 6 and under being one division, exhibition only. With your suggestions for ages, but keep the same levels, you might be on to something!

- No bottom age allows kids to move up, but no older age kids to be in a division if they are above the max age. Having kids move up is a team managment issue, having older kids in younger divisions starts to create a skill/size advantage.

- I coach soccer as well and like to use it for sport comparisons, but the examples people are using in this thread there are a few major differences. Soccer involves direct, opposing physical contact. Size differences can easily create and advantage, if not dangerous situations. In cheer, there are advantages to size differences, but those are related to how the coach choreographs the routine and aren't necessarily dangerous.

 

[NJ Coach]

I think we mentioned this in another thread, but... the level 4 9 year old would have to either cheer level 1/2 and continue working her skills individually, or go to another gym.

And you just killed the small gym. This creates less competition because the small gyms lose that talented little level 4 9 yr old to the mega gym down the street. I don't like seeing babies flying on senior teams either, but not every gym can offer a team at every level. I'm supposed to let suzie go to my competition as punishment cause I'm not a big gym? You know a level 3, 4 or 5 kid isn't going to want to stay on a 2 without the opportunity to perform the skills they've worked for.

 

[Num1Stunta]

- No bottom age allows kids to move up, but no older age kids to be in a division if they are above the max age. Having kids move up is a team managment issue, having older kids in younger divisions starts to create a skill/size advantage.

- I coach soccer as well and like to use it for sport comparisons, but the examples people are using in this thread there are a few major differences. Soccer involves direct, opposing physical contact. Size differences can easily create and advantage, if not dangerous situations. In cheer, there are advantages to size differences, but those are related to how the coach choreographs the routine and aren't necessarily dangerous.

This is a valid point. I do think, as stated in other threads, that the whole 10 year olds on seniors thing is a little bit of an unfair advantage in some cases. It's much more challenging to take a group of kids in the same age bracket and construct a competitive team. If every team had to do that, I think it would be a good change for the sport imo

 

[SharkDad]

Don't disagree but there are lots of smaller gyms out there who don't have a choice

 

[newcheerdad]

I coach soccer as well and like to use it for sport comparisons, but the examples people are using in this thread there are a few major differences. Soccer involves direct, opposing physical contact. Size differences can easily create and advantage, if not dangerous situations. In cheer, there are advantages to size differences, but those are related to how the coach choreographs the routine and aren't necessarily dangerous.

I think that's a fair point. But what I will say is that there are a lot of reasons why you keep similarly aged kids playing with and against each other. The size difference is only one part of the equation. There are skill components as well as various levels of emotional maturity that you have to deal with, especially in a team sport. Rarely would I suggest a kid play up simply because they're too big for their age. (in fact, on rec teams I often hear parents comment on the "big kid" and wonder why he's on the team in the first place)

Normally you have someone play up when a combination of their physical attributes, skill level and maturity demand it. I do concede that in cheer that it's more likely that you'll have prodigies that need to compete on higher level teams, but I do wonder if sometimes the social and maturity aspects are overlooked. After all, it's still a team sport.

I'd be curious to hear how coaches make that evaluation, and how it might be the same or differ from other sports.

 

[Num1Stunta]

And you just killed the small gym. This creates less competition because the small gyms lose that talented little level 4 9 yr old to the mega gym down the street. I don't like seeing babies flying on senior teams either, but not every gym can offer a team at every level. I'm supposed to let suzie go to my competition as punishment cause I'm not a big gym? You know a level 3, 4 or 5 kid isn't going to want to stay on a 2 without the opportunity to perform the skills they've worked for.

I see what you're saying, coming from a small gym as well. However, you're talking about such a small percentage of kids in most cases. Let them move to a program that fits their needs, and keep your majority where they belong... according to age and skill. I can tell you that this would solve a lot of issues that I have at my gym with younger kids being added to older teams just because they have tumbling skills and nothing else or flying skills and nothing else. It would force us to train 14 and 15 year olds to fly... our kids are going to be better conditioned, and it allows new opportunities for potentially talented flyers who simply don't get the chance to learn because you're going to end up putting younger kids in those flying spots.

Again, every gym is different, but i dont see that hurting my very small gym (I've mentioned in other threads that we are less than 60... I believe our current count is 52)