All-Star Large Senior And Worlds! If Only 3 Teams In The Division....

[AllHeartxo3]

like i said before, i wish more teams would try. the more they work for it, the more likely they are to beat the "big 3" as we're calling them. 36 is just so impressive to watch. i would really hate to see it die, just because teams won't take the risk to go against great competition. yes, it's unlikely that they would get in there their first year, but with time, anything's possible. plus i love seeing the big 3 as large

Teams have been "trying" for years. It's not like they weren't trying their best to get the gold or get into the top 3, it's just that it was almost impossible against these teams. Why are teams going to waste their time in a division where they aren't successful and pretty much can't be? They are going to medium to try and be successful, not to run away from the competition. This medium/ new large division will be a lot cleaner than the large we have now and a lot more impressive.

 

[Cheerfan1234]

Few quick thoughts:

All of those large senior teams (including CA Panthers) have competed at Worlds and finished out of the medals at least once.

The biggest divisions already have the majority of the teams performing twice. How many performances before a team will qualify as "happy?" Would changing the names of the rounds in huge divisions make a difference? Prelims, "Finals" (top 25), "Medal Round" (top 10)? We could give out finalist ribbons to everyone in the 2nd round.

Math errors abound in some of the posts. Please don't throw out wild numbers and stats to try to back up your point if they are incorrect. I am trying to focus on the intent of the posts, but I can only contain my inner Sheldon (nerd) for so long.

Barring a tie, there is no way for more than 10 teams to experience being in the top 10 in their division. Every team theoretically starts Worlds with a chance to be top 10, but only 10 will make it regardless of how many rounds there are.

We have had teams finish out of finals, including those that we thought were contenders for medals. It sucks, but that is the way the game is played. You know going in that hitting in prelims/semis is part of the process. I do get where people are coming from wanting to have as many people "win" from their perspective as possible, but IMO, Worlds should be the one competition a year out of hundreds that is focused on determining who are the best teams.

I completely agree with you...and in terms of math errors...I'm assuming you meant me because I admit my math was incorrect..If there are 70 teams and 10 go to finals, then 85%, not 90% will get wiped out in one day...That is still a ridiculously high amount of teams and I will continue to use this statistic to back my point. If worlds is about determining who the best teams are, then 70 teams shouldn't be invited, plain and simple. Better yet, why are more than 5 teams in ANY division even invited when we can pretty much predict year after year who will take home the globes, give or take a team or two?

When you are from Cheer Athletics, Stingray Allstars or any other big-name gym with multiple Worlds globes, it easy to have a nonchalant attitude about only taking 10 of 70 teams to finals because you've won this division more than once. And if you're part of the Large Senior division, you probably don't value the importance of top 10 because there aren't even 10 in that division. Likewise, even if you don't medal in one division, many of you field other Worlds teams that can potentially medal in another division. Worlds is about "crowning" the best teams, right? Then why even announce the top ten in a dramatic, heart-pounding awards ceremony if 4th through 10th place is nothing to be proud of or to work hard for? There is something to be said about making it to the top ten if the USASF actually makes such a huge deal about it in the 40+team divisions.

I'll quote from another post..."It's actually Worlds, not a rinky-dink competition in someone's backyard." I agree completely. And Worlds USED to seem like an exclusive, prestigious event solely for the best of the best, but we all know what it has turned into. The USASF has created a culture of entitlement where everyone can win a bid and everyone feels like they deserve to compete twice. We all have fallen victim to that sense of entitlement whether we're from a program that consistently takes home a globe or a program that is climbing the proverbial ladder. For instance, if Large Senior will only take 50% to finals, then why is a third team entitled to slip by just because there are only 4 teams in the division? I've proven not to be a mathematician, but I do know 50% of four is two We've all been witness to Large Senior awards over the past few years...1st place jumps around screaming and convulsing like they just won the lottery while second and third place looks like someone just told them all of their mothers just died. Sometimes 1st place doesn't even get so much as a congratulations from 2nd and 3rd. There apparently is no glory in silver or bronze anymore. Meanwhile over in small senior the tenth place team jumps around like they just won the megamillions because they appreciate how hard it was to even get to the top ten. This is the culture that has been created, like it or not. I'm not saying it's right, but it is the reality. It's like inviting 70 people to a party that was only supposed to be for an exclusive bunch of four or five and then telling 60 of them they have to leave. The answer? Don't invite so many guests and nobody's feelings will get hurt because the unwanted won't be there to begin with.

In any case, if only ten teams in small senior are indeed going to finals this year, then I say keep Large Senior finals at 50% and let the top two teams battle it out...No medals, one winner. Someone is going to go home very unhappy, but again this is not supposed to be about making people happy and making them value a wonderful experience..We're just here to pick the winners.

 

[imrichhowboutu]

Regardless of how many people were in a division, they always give out the top 3 medals. When one team was the only team in their division, they took home a gold and didnt have to do anything.

At the olympics, there are different numbers of entrants to each sport. Same thing with us and our divisions. I think they take the same number of people in gymnastics every year regardless of how many countries send teams. The olympics is about who makes it to the podium also. Yes a country is proud just to send someone to the Olympics let alone how they place. So it will be the same thing. Great, you sent someone to worlds. Now if they are the best of the best, they will make it to finals. It shouldnt be any other way.

 

[uaLaurennn]

maryland marlins?

 

[csagrl100]

maryland marlins?

They're medium

 

[uaLaurennn]

They're medium

aghh i wanted them to take 3rd this year

 

[carolinagirl823]

If you want to fight for 17th place in the country then go to NCA or Cheersport. Worlds is about the best of the best competing with each other for the crown. Top 10 should go to finals. Nobody wants to sit through 30+ teams in small senior during finals.

I think that if they were to change it to top 10 for finals, small teams would be more likely to try to go medium or large. It might help to even out team distributions.

 

[mariahnicole1216]

Im glad im going to worlds this year just so I can see the original Large Senior for possibly the last time. Im very sad about this. I love this division. I know its probably for the best but if you love something you must let it go.

Im super dramatic, clearly.

 

[Cheerfan1234]

I think they take the same number of people in gymnastics every year regardless of how many countries send teams.

Right and the key word is consistency. They've found a way that works for them and they stick to its integrity...We change things from Worlds score sheets to performance order selection to venues almost every single year and now in the event's 9th year we may make another drastic change, and all the while, a considerable portion of the industry is left in the gray about what it all means and when we will all find out..

 

[Cheerfan1234]

If you want to fight for 17th place in the country then go to NCA or Cheersport. Worlds is about the best of the best competing with each other for the crown. Top 10 should go to finals. Nobody wants to sit through 30+ teams in small senior during finals.

I think that if they were to change it to top 10 for finals, small teams would be more likely to try to go medium or large. It might help to even out team distributions.

???? At NCA or at Cheersport, there are usually only 17 (or so) teams in the small senior division so why would you fight for last place? I am confused by that statement.

Again, if worlds is about the best of the best competing for a crown (which it isn't anymore in some divisions), then why take ten teams to finals when some of those ten probably won't score high enough to medal even on their best day? How about we only take the three highest scores from prelims in EVERY division to finals and have them battle it out for the medals. I'm guessing no one would like the thought of that

If the USASF continues to allow 70 teams to come to Worlds but only allow ten to compete twice, I don't think teams will try harder to go medium or large..I think more teams will just stop coming...which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing for some divisions.

 

[csagrl100]

aghh i wanted them to take 3rd this year

You never know what'll happen in medium this year! It's going to be an intense division at worlds.

 

[imrichhowboutu]

???? At NCA or at Cheersport, there are usually only 17 (or so) teams in the small senior division so why would you fight for last place? I am confused by that statement.

Again, if worlds is about the best of the best competing for a crown (which it isn't anymore in some divisions), then why take ten teams to finals when some of those ten probably won't score high enough to medal even on their best day? How about we only take the three highest scores from prelims in EVERY division to finals and have them battle it out for the medals. I'm guessing no one would like the thought of that

If the USASF continues to allow 70 teams to come to Worlds but only allow ten to compete twice, I don't think teams will try harder to go medium or large..I think more teams will just stop coming...which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing for some divisions.

I don't get why you are taking it from everyone to the top 3. There have been plenty of times when the top team has fallen to a different position and someone in a different position has moved into top 3. In no sport would you go from every competitor to awarding the top 3 spots. There needs to be a round with fewer teams and more than just 3. Otherwise why would we have finals. Make it a 1 day competition.

Clearly you are upset by the top 10 suggestion because your gym hasn't made it to the top 10 but has made it to top 20.

 

[blunchin]

im surprised at the amount of comments about winners/losers, non-sugarcoating, etc. when we always seem to get so sensitive when the first place team celebrates (#justsayin'). whatever decision is made i hope it is made with an ample amount of time for gyms to make the best decision for their programs. the usasf isn't really known for having the best timing.

 

[Nothanks]

im surprised at the amount of comments about winners/losers, non-sugarcoating, etc. when we always seem to get so sensitive when the first place team celebrates (#justsayin'). whatever decision is made i hope it is made with an ample amount of time for gyms to make the best decision for their programs. the usasf isn't really known for having the best timing.

I was going to say...we all want there to be less teams, but when it's our team that might not make it due to these restrictions/rules, we're up in arms. would it suck having been to worlds for the last 3 years if you all of a sudden didn't get a bid because they restrict numbers? yes, but that gives you more to work towards. and will give a bigger sense of accomplishment when you actually get there.

 

[blunchin]

I was going to say...we all want there to be less teams, but when it's our team that might not make it due to these restrictions/rules, we're up in arms. would it suck having been to worlds for the last 3 years if you all of a sudden didn't get a bid because they restrict numbers? yes, but that gives you more to work towards. and will give a bigger sense of accomplishment when you actually get there.

i personally do not have a hard opinion on the matter but i find it funny that we always demand consistency but many posts seem to change their opinion on certain subjects quite frequently. if bids were restricted i think that this could be a good thing bc it would bring back some of the prestige of the competition. if it stays the same, then it is what it is and we'll keep working hard to get a paid bid and attend.