All-Star Usasf Age Grid To Be Released Soon!

[cheermommaRN]

If the old Y5 division was gone, most of those kids would end up on a J5. If Susie is throwing her double on a Y5 then sure crossover to a Y5R (especially if we have good chance of winning) but I highly doubt the parent of a kid throwing a double at 9 would want their child on ONLY a Y5R.
My aversion to Y5 has always been in the fact that little knees don't need that kind of impact. Even in gymnastics kids don't double until they are Elite, and yes you will see those Jr national team/TOPS members but they are a very small percentage of the gymnastics population. And those kids train for hours to get those skills. I know of one example of a mom pushing her kid from level 2 to level 8 in a year and a half and now her kid has all sorts of physical issues.

 

[ciacobra]

correct, there is no restriction on the amount of crossovers on a team. An athlete may only cross to teams, in addition to their main team.

Thank you

 

[hopskipandjump]

I was wondering the same thing... I just checked the current age grid and it currently says 1 or more males for that division.

so does that mean you can only have 12 (or half your team?) made up of males? I can't have 13 on my team?

 

[newcheerdad]

I wouldn't get to worked up about Y5...I did at first and then took the time to read all the way to the bottom of the 15 page document. Both divisions are being monitored for participation, and like Kingston said, the natural order of things one or both of the divisions will be gone for the 2012-2013 season. What I believe will happen is that there will be a large amount of Y5 restricted teams, and maybe 1 or 2 Y5 teams. Next season Y5 will be gone and Y5R will be the new standard, all of the prodigy tumblers will be on Jr5 teams.
My only concern with the "crossover to two other teams" is that you will see some gyms roll out a Y5R that looks almost identical member wise to their Y5 and sandbag the heck out of the division. So then these kids who think they are on level ground in their division will find themselves competing against the same kids that just took the mat an hour ago doubling and now they are just watering down...not cool.

The crossover rules, unfortunately, do almost nothing to deal with the issue of sandbagging.

 

[ACEDAD]

If the old Y5 division was gone, most of those kids would end up on a J5. If Susie is throwing her double on a Y5 then sure crossover to a Y5R (especially if we have good chance of winning) but I highly doubt the parent of a kid throwing a double at 9 would want their child on ONLY a Y5R.
My aversion to Y5 has always been in the fact that little knees don't need that kind of impact. Even in gymnastics kids don't double until they are Elite, and yes you will see those Jr national team/TOPS members but they are a very small percentage of the gymnastics population. And those kids train for hours to get those skills. I know of one example of a mom pushing her kid from level 2 to level 8 in a year and a half and now her kid has all sorts of physical issues.

Ok. Wait. First you're concerned about kids that can throw doubles crossing from Y5 to Y5R and accusing them of "sandbagging." Then you say that if there is no Y5, the kids would be on J5 (where I'm assuming the could throw doubles). Then you say that your aversion has always been their little knees.

So is the problem really their knees? In which case we shouldn't even let them compete on J5.

Or is the problem "sandbagging" where kids that can throw doubles are competing in Y5R?

And if we don't let them compete on J5 in order to protect their knees and we don't allow Y5 in order to protect their knees, then they are left with Y5R where we all point and call them cheaters for "sandbagging."

You're not the only one that keeps making this round robin argument, but just put it all in one or two posts.

I just gotta say that it really is starting to sound like there are some talented Y5 kids out there that a lot of people just don't want to compete against.

Let me bring back up my proposal to compress the number of divisions back to where it was about 6-7 years ago. Then, instead of this small gym division #$%#, and having EP's split divisions so that Suzie and Suzie's mom don't have their feelings hurt, just have gyms sign up to compete as Division I or Division II. If you want to compete in Division I, your level 5 senior teams will be eligible for Worlds bids and your lower level teams will compete against whoever shows up. If you want to let your teams get some experience or you don't have quite as much talent in a given year, then choose Division II.

 

[cheererinIL]

Let me bring back up my proposal to compress the number of divisions back to where it was about 6-7 years ago. Then, instead of this small gym division #$%#, and having EP's split divisions so that Suzie and Suzie's mom don't have their feelings hurt, just have gyms sign up to compete as Division I or Division II. If you want to compete in Division I, your level 5 senior teams will be eligible for Worlds bids and your lower level teams will compete against whoever shows up. If you want to let your teams get some experience or you don't have quite as much talent in a given year, then choose Division II.

This is an absolutely great idea. The division system has gotten very complicated since back in "my day" (aka 2001-ish to 2006-ish).

 

[newcheerdad]

Ok. Wait. First you're concerned about kids that can throw doubles crossing from Y5 to Y5R and accusing them of "sandbagging." Then you say that if there is no Y5, the kids would be on J5 (where I'm assuming the could throw doubles). Then you say that your aversion has always been their little knees.

So is the problem really their knees? In which case we shouldn't even let them compete on J5.

Or is the problem "sandbagging" where kids that can throw doubles are competing in Y5R?

And if we don't let them compete on J5 in order to protect their knees and we don't allow Y5 in order to protect their knees, then they are left with Y5R where we all point and call them cheaters for "sandbagging."

You're not the only one that keeps making this round robin argument, but just put it all in one or two posts.

I just gotta say that it really is starting to sound like there are some talented Y5 kids out there that a lot of people just don't want to compete against.

Let me bring back up my proposal to compress the number of divisions back to where it was about 6-7 years ago. Then, instead of this small gym division #$%#, and having EP's split divisions so that Suzie and Suzie's mom don't have their feelings hurt, just have gyms sign up to compete as Division I or Division II. If you want to compete in Division I, your level 5 senior teams will be eligible for Worlds bids and your lower level teams will compete against whoever shows up. If you want to let your teams get some experience or you don't have quite as much talent in a given year, then choose Division II.

With regards to youth 5, there are two separate issues in play.

If it's an issue of safety, well, then I'm going to leave the issue of safety to people in the industry. I haven't heard a compelling argument that says that youth 5 needed to be restricted myself, but the majority of those who voted said that they wanted youth 5 to be eliminated outright and a large majority said they wanted it restricted. I am not in the heads of the people who voted that way, so I don't know *why* someone would vote to eliminate or restrict youth 5. Maybe it was for competitive reasons, maybe it was out of concern for safety, maybe it was because they felt that there weren't enough youth 5 teams to create a competitive division.

As to crossovers, the problem with the crossover rules that were passed is that they'll only impact a tiny number of athletes. If the idea behind the crossover rule was to improve competitive balance by preventing higher-level athletes from competing on lower-level teams en masse, then the rule does almost nothing to prevent that. That's not necessarily a youth 5 vs. youth 5 restricted issue. That's a general issue that you could apply to pretty much any level.

I don't hate the idea of Division I vs. Division II, actually, but you'd really need to have some defined, objective criteria as to what constitutes a division I vs. division II program, rather than letting teams pick. Maybe it's a combination of gym size, team performance, history, etc. That way you earn your way into being a division I program.

 

[cheererinIL]

I don't hate the idea of Division I vs. Division II, actually, but you'd really need to have some defined, objective criteria as to what constitutes a division I vs. division II program, rather than letting teams pick. Maybe it's a combination of gym size, team performance, history, etc. That way you earn your way into being a division I program.

I disagree. I think the gym should be able to pick when they are "ready" or prepared to be a Division I, just like teams get to pick if they are Level 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6.

 

[Cheer_Explosion_Coach]

Everyone always says that allowing crossovers are to help the small gyms, but I'm here to tell you that crossovers are actually hurting the small gyms. Here's why. I have a small Senior Coed 3 and a competitor down the road also has a team in the same division; they are large BUT at most local competitions we are grouped together anyway. Now they also have a J4 , J5, and Senior 5. It is a bit frustrating to have my kids, whom most only have L3 skills some only L2, have to compete against their team that has crossovers from their high level teams. We can't compete. I totally agree with their team doing this because they are not breaking any rules, (I would if I were them) but it makes it hard for me to keep my doors open because they are seen as the superior gym. And many kids come in for a year then jump gyms. I'm just guessing but I don't think I'm the only one who experiences this.

I really hope that the USASF can help with this by limiting crossovers and getting the cheerleaders to become members so we can keep up with what levels these cheerleaders are competing. Wishful thinking? Maybe?

 

[Pa Cheer mom]

So annoyed about the no bottom age on seniors thing. Offering the "suggestion" that ages should be closely grouped is a crap shoot. For another two years we are going to have the pleasure of seeing these 10 and 11 year olds flying on senior squads. Awesome.

I agree..I would love to see a bottom age on the Senior teams. It is so much better to watch Senior girls/boys base there own age, it shows much more skill !!!!!!!!

 

[newcheerdad]

I disagree. I think the gym should be able to pick when they are "ready" or prepared to be a Division I, just like teams get to pick if they are Level 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6.

Who would pick Division II then? I think you'd end up with 85 percent of your teams in Division I and nobody in Division II to compete with.

Maybe the simple criteria for Division I is that you have to sponsor one team that competes in a World's division. That would draw a pretty distinct line in the sand right there, although I'm not sure what the breakdown would ultimately be.

 

[newcheerdad]

Who would pick Division II then? I think you'd end up with 85 percent of your teams in Division I and nobody in Division II to compete with.

Maybe the simple criteria for Division I is that you have to sponsor one team that competes in a World's division. That would draw a pretty distinct line in the sand right there, although I'm not sure what the breakdown would ultimately be.

Further to that point - I draw the parallel to the NCAA. The NCAA groups universities by whether they're Division I, II or III. You can't just say "I want our athletic program to go Division I" and then it magically happens. There's a set of criteria that you have to meet (amount of aid given, number of athletic scholarships, number of sports offered, etc.) in order to be eligible.

I think that's the concept, in theory, behind small gym/large gym - the idea that a small gym by definition doesn't have the resources to compete with programs 2, 3 or more times their size.

 

[WuToDouble]

should just leave it at 5 senior worlds divisions:
Small coed
Medium Coed
Large Coed
Small all girl
Bigger All girl lol

 

[cheererinIL]

I think that's the concept, in theory, behind small gym/large gym - the idea that a small gym by definition doesn't have the resources to compete with programs 2, 3 or more times their size.

I disagree again. I think there are definitely some small gyms out there giving large gyms a run for their money.

 

[yojaehs]

Can someone explain the purpose of a forward or backward roll after a full in the Sr. Restricted division? To me this is the DUMBEST thing written on the 15 pages.