All-Star D1 / D2 Debate

Welcome to our Cheerleading Community

Members see FEWER ads... join today!

I love the tone of the conversation here. Coming from personal experience and also an overall industry standpoint view, I feel if the year over year changes wouldn’t occur in terms of D1/D2, we could form some type of normalcy and gain legitimacy and more understanding.

I have watched as gyms chose to franchise to keep their gyms afloat (names normally bring or retain athletes) and were still able to be small gym and now D2. Then, rules change and you can no longer be D2. Gym fights the good fight...and now it’s not worth it for the franchise to be a franchise because they can not competitively hold their own in D1. Gym chooses to not franchise the following year and then here comes another potential change to reverse it with self-declaration.

The back and forth just stirs the pot.

As a Director in a program with D2 numbers, we choose to compete D1. It’s a business decision. We lie in between two major Worlds contending programs.

Do I feel franchises should be D1? No, I actually believe all franchises should be required to be D2. Main location = D1 and all franchise subsidiaries = D2. But my train of thought stems from divisions in collegiate sports.

I do feel that we bring this on ourselves. I don’t know the solution, as it seems that change is inevitable, but more frequent than needed to have stability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If part of the concern of the D1/D2 gym is the sharing of athletes, why not label each athlete D1 or D2 instead of focusing only on labeling the team? If there are micro-franchies that don't share athletes that would be a better fit in D2, making the athletes register themselves as D1 or D2 would eliminate that problem. It could be done with their yearly USASF membership renewal.
 
I think franchises should have the option to compete D2 because most franchises don't share athletes, so gym to gym crossovers are rare. The main gym's roster has 0 effect on my roster yet I'm being restricted because of it.
 
It is a matter of perspective. If a particular rule or set of rules favors a special interest group, your opinion of it is influenced by whether you are a part of that special interest group.
 
Last edited:
From a business and parent perspective I think two things are happening. The first being, the higher the cost, the higher the expectations. The second being, business is moving toward experience driven commerce.

The journey and hype of the journey IMO, has caused a redirection in focus from what youth sports once boasted about learning commitment and hard work, and now it's the focus on the journey towards the ultimate prize. In youth sports if our child is winning and/or having an enjoyable time it's easier for us parents to justify the cost. In reality, to get that "experience journey" businesses are forced to create it for the masses. In other words, for AS that means more divisions, more wins, more people getting the winner experience and feeling like they got a return on their money.

If I look at it solely from a cheer as a sport perspective, IMO "age divisions" should not exist unless dictated by health findings. The goal of cheer is to create stunt groups that can physically accomplish the skills needed in the safest way for the athletes in that stunt group. Injuries IMO are often caused by kids being locked into age groups their body and skills don't physically work with.

As far as franchises and D1/D2, IMO the rule of 125 athletes at a location should be the dictating factor and not because of a name painted on the door. If economic ability becomes the defining factor in fairness, then AS needs to create divisions by economic location, as well.....but, again, we're feeding into the whole fairness so my kid will have the experience of the winning journey, too.

Lastly, transparency means nothing without trust. If Alabama plays UGA and the touchdowns and field goals are all evident, it only makes sense because they were seen and recorded they were being transparent.....right until someone accuses the refs of not making good calls because of politics and money.

Experience-Driven Commerce: 6 Ways to Become an Experience Business
 
I apologize, but I don't think I am following. I am not sure how to word the difference, but do you believe it is because scores ARE wrong, or because they are PERCEIVED to be wrong because of a lack of transparency?

I am with you generally on the perception issue. I'm not sure that I am with you as much on the errors - at least from a "let's change the scores so that big gym X will come back" point of view. I wouldn't say that NEVER happens, but I think it is far less prevalent than is assumed. We are as big a customer as anyone and we lose close competitions to smaller programs all the time. I have also never been made any type of offer about "favorable judging" in return for attendance. (Maybe they know that even just the offer would mean we never attend that event ever again.)

No apology necessary, I thank you for taking the time to ask for clarity than to assume incorrectly.

Honestly I believe both play a factor. Scoring errors happen. We see them every week almost and frankly we see them in almost every sport. As a gymnastic judge I made my share of errors and in my sports I coach now (gymnastics and power tumbling) I have caught judges in errors. It happens. Yet I can can protest both without charge and with charge to get clarity and correction if needed. It is not seen as adversarial when I as a coach ask a question about a score I do not understand or agree with. Just last competition I had a disagreement on a front layout front tuck combination that I feel was in error - one that would NEVER be taken in cheer but youtubed everywhere about how amazing it was. But it took all of 2 minutes and we were done, and the competition continued.

In cheer it feels too much the coaches and judges are adversarial - except if the judges have done choreography for the coaches which again is another whole issue. Without having an independent judging board in cheer, transparency and accountability as we have discussed it is hard to even lodge complaint to determine what and how it happens. You get a response of "it is in range" which often translates as shut up and go away, "its subjective" or we will review when we get back to the office. Maybe you get a response, maybe you don't. By that time the event is over, bids (if awarded) are done and you have to answer to you athletes, parents and program why you should return to that event the following year

I have spoken with judges in cheer that have admitted mistakes and others who have been told to change their scores to be favorable to certain programs. Not having an independent judging board hurts them as well as the athletes and the sport, although as you alluded to it is a great business advantage for V.

I do believe that due to the lack of transparency and accountability IF scores are wrong to make corrections publicly that makes it a much larger issue than it should ever be. That is where V has a huge issue that they fail to address except for give us another chance. Now do I believe it is an outright blatant thing week after week, no not at all. But when it happens, it does matter to the gym that it happens to and if it is not made right, makes it worse.

I think with the buyout of everything you do not have nearly as much of the favorable judging so that big gym name x will return scenarios. That I feel has greatly diminished or been eliminated so that IMO is not a reason.

I also believe that your integrity in the industry is such that they know you would not attend an event if that occurred to you, and why you have been able to get some small gym owners to talk honestly with you about this issue that V can not. Whenever you feel your issues will fall on deaf ears or be used against you, the tendency of most it seems is to just shut up and keep their heads down or walk away completely.
 
I think franchises should have the option to compete D2 because most franchises don't share athletes, so gym to gym crossovers are rare. The main gym's roster has 0 effect on my roster yet I'm being restricted because of it.
But as a franchise of a big well known gym you will have a bigger pool of athletes to pick from compared to a small not well known gym close by....so more well rounded true level talented teams...
 
But as a franchise of a big well known gym you will have a bigger pool of athletes to pick from compared to a small not well known gym close by....so more well rounded true level talented teams...
Not necessarily, there are man satellite gyms that actually operate with a roster well under 125. Also with the creation of d2 summit I see more athletes sticking with their 'home' gym because they are able to experience success.
 
If a satellite location has less than 125 athletes and they are not sharing athletes with another facility, I don't see how their pool of athletes is different than "real" D2 gym. I believe there is a misunderstanding of how most multi-gym brands tend to operate.

If you want to make a different argument about the "unfairness" of sharing choreographers or shared business practices, do we also want to stop gyms from hiring outside choreographers or going to coach conferences?

From my side, the undercurrent of this debate seems to really be about the marketing power of the top mega-gyms and the threat of having to compete against that for athletes. I wish we could have a discussion directly about that instead of going through verbal gymnastics about shared resources, business models, and what types of gyms should be restricted from which events or divisions. I could be wrong, however.

Perhaps we can discuss ethical practices about where gyms should be allowed to open, what type of notice should be given to future competitors you are opening in/around, what type of "claim" a particular gym has on an athlete who has been with them, and what are the best practices for business in terms of advertising/recruiting of athletes. There are probably varying opinions on many of those things.
 
Last edited:
From a parent POV, it’s not just marketing to get athletes. I’ve heard the comments from our girls and their parents when a team walks in with a super-recognizable name. It doesn’t matter that it’s “tiny branch, just started last year, only has 80 athletes”-they carry with them the reputation of the big gym. That’s both a positive and a negative-there is a definite intimidation factor, but there’s also a “set up for a fall”-because there is a big rush at beating one of those names that brings home multiple globes in a typical year. I think that makes D1and D2 harder to define. In college, no one competing against UT-Martin is under any illusion that they’re competing against UT Knoxville. They’re in diffeeent divisions, have different colors, and are separate entities. But in cheer, honestly sometimes it’s hard to tell which branch is which when they all compete under the same flag, have the same colors, and have uniforms that are, if not identical, as similar as those between senior and junior or worlds and non-worlds teams in the same gym.
 
If a satellite location has less than 125 athletes and they are not sharing athletes with another facility, I don't see how their pool of athletes is different than "real" D2 gym. I believe there is a misunderstanding of how most multi-gym brands tend to operate.

If you want to make a different argument about the "unfairness" of sharing choreographers or shared business practices, do we also want to stop gyms from hiring outside choreographers or going to coach conferences?

From my side, the undercurrent of this debate seems to really be about the marketing power of the top mega-gyms and the threat of having to compete against that for athletes. I wish we could have a discussion directly about that instead of going through verbal gymnastics about shared resources, business models, and what types of gyms should be restricted from which events or divisions. I could be wrong, however.

Perhaps we can discuss ethical practices about where gyms should be allowed to open, what type of notice should be given to future competitors you are opening in/around, what type of "claim" a particular gym has on an athlete who has been with them, and what are the best practices for business in terms of advertising/recruiting of athletes. There are probably varying opinions on many of those things.

Please understand I am saying nothing here to disparage anyone or any gym, past or present. I do feel like we talk around things a lot because once we are direct it often involves naming programs, athletes, direct occurrences which inevitably turn into a he said/she said type conversation. From there the weight of the personality of the person or gym tends to overshadow the truthful merits of any statements. We may disagree here slightly, but this is one area many D2 gyms feel like a satellite location has a "different" pool of athletes. I have seen this play out with many, many gyms across the country and honestly if a satellite of a mega branded gym was opened in our geographic location we would see the same exact thing. I also must add that because everyone's ethical standards are different, what some say is unethical, others see nothing wrong with and take competitive advantage by doing it.

The advantage is that as a satellite gym with the branding etc, the initial deposit of athletes would come from already established programs that have trained those athletes in the past. it would not be the talent challenged L1 athlete or the trying to decide if I want to do cheer or soccer athlete running thru the door first but the upper level athletes that now have the chance to wear "that name" across their chest. Athletes that have already been taught the basics of cheerleading and tumbling. They have gone thru their gangly gawky phase and now are confident and sure, regardless if they are a L2, 3, 4 or 5. Those for who relocation to the main location gyms would be impossible, but now they can fulfill their "dream" of being on one of those major industry teams.

So just in that alone, the new satellite gym gets a major influx of already trained athletes and parents. They start their first season as a gym technically 3-4 years ahead of where most gyms in the area started based on talent alone. The media posts of how amazing the new satellite gym is as a first year gym while conveniently ignoring that the majority of their new athletes have been cheering for years at other programs and are not new at all but simply in a new uniform and program.

But what happens to the gyms they left? Often they are devastated with the loss of long term athletes. Athletes they gave scholarships to so they could cheer (another discussion to be sure). Athletes they struggled with and thru mental blocks with. Athletes they planned on moving up levels, perhaps going to NCA or Worlds with that now they have to honestly reassess if they can realistically keep their doors open. Because once the floodgates open, they rarely close. Rarely. There is always the "Suzy left and it is wonderful, and they have another spot open, you should come too" talk. Especially if cheerleading is the main thing keeping that business open. Then, to see some of those same satellite gyms close a couple of years later after they have sucked the talent out of other gyms in the area is probably the cruelest slap in the face. I well remember one mega gym owner saying it was in their best interest on saving overhead to let the smaller gyms train the beginning level cheerleaders, weed them out, and develop their basics and then let them come to his gym and he would teach them how to win. This was before the satellite expansion push. Now it seems like it is the same concept brought to expansion. NOW, add to that all the other things mentioned ie shared resources, access to certain choreographers, recruiting both legally and illegally, the perception that name across the chest automatically makes you better than a lesser known or marketed gym.

I am the first one to admit many small gyms need to do more to solidify their business, especially in the face of this new normal. Anytime I get the chance to say it and tell it I will. But - and here is the thing - what it may take for us to survive as smaller gyms may also hurt industry growth because it requires us to diversify our income streams. which means more affordable programming which means less athletes doing cheerleading. We may go down from 7 teams to 3 because those are the athletes and families that can actually afford cheerleading, and do other programming with the others. It may mean downsizing buildings and going into multi sport facilities. It may mean cutting staff and days. Which also hurts the industry, but may be the only thing we can do to survive.
 
Last edited:
Please understand I am saying nothing here to disparage anyone or any gym, past or present. I do feel like we talk around things a lot because once we are direct it often involves naming programs, athletes, direct occurrences which inevitably turn into a he said/she said type conversation. From there the weight of the personality of the person or gym tends to overshadow the truthful merits of any statements. We may disagree here slightly, but this is one area many D2 gyms feel like a satellite location has a "different" pool of athletes. I have seen this play out with many, many gyms across the country and honestly if a satellite of a mega branded gym was opened in our geographic location we would see the same exact thing. I also must add that because everyone's ethical standards are different, what some say is unethical, others see nothing wrong with and take competitive advantage by doing it.

The advantage is that as a satellite gym with the branding etc, the initial deposit of athletes would come from already established programs that have trained those athletes in the past. it would not be the talent challenged L1 athlete or the trying to decide if I want to do cheer or soccer athlete running thru the door first but the upper level athletes that now have the chance to wear "that name" across their chest. Athletes that have already been taught the basics of cheerleading and tumbling. They have gone thru their gangly gawky phase and now are confident and sure, regardless if they are a L2, 3, 4 or 5. Those for who relocation to the main location gyms would be impossible, but now they can fulfill their "dream" of being on one of those major industry teams.

So just in that alone, the new satellite gym gets a major influx of already trained athletes and parents. They start their first season as a gym technically 3-4 years ahead of where most gyms in the area started based on talent alone. The media posts of how amazing the new satellite gym is as a first year gym while conveniently ignoring that the majority of their new athletes have been cheering for years at other programs and are not new at all but simply in a new uniform and program.

But what happens to the gyms they left? Often they are devastated with the loss of long term athletes. Athletes they gave scholarships to so they could cheer (another discussion to be sure). Athletes they struggled with and thru mental blocks with. Athletes they planned on moving up levels, perhaps going to NCA or Worlds with that now they have to honestly reassess if they can realistically keep their doors open. Because once the floodgates open, they rarely close. Rarely. There is always the "Suzy left and it is wonderful, and they have another spot open, you should come too" talk. Especially if cheerleading is the main thing keeping that business open. Then, to see some of those same satellite gyms close a couple of years later after they have sucked the talent out of other gyms in the area is probably the cruelest slap in the face. I well remember one mega gym owner saying it was in their best interest on saving overhead to let the smaller gyms train the beginning level cheerleaders, weed them out, and develop their basics and then let them come to his gym and he would teach them how to win. This was before the satellite expansion push. Now it seems like it is the same concept brought to expansion. NOW, add to that all the other things mentioned ie shared resources, access to certain choreographers, recruiting both legally and illegally, the perception that name across the chest automatically makes you better than a lesser known or marketed gym.

I am the first one to admit many small gyms need to do more to solidify their business, especially in the face of this new normal. Anytime I get the chance to say it and tell it I will. But - and here is the thing - what it may take for us to survive as smaller gyms may also hurt industry growth because it requires us to diversify our income streams. which means more affordable programming which means less athletes doing cheerleading. We may go down from 7 teams to 3 because those are the athletes and families that can actually afford cheerleading, and do other programming with the others. It may mean downsizing buildings and going into multi sport facilities. It may mean cutting staff and days. Which also hurts the industry, but may be the only thing we can do to survive.

You aren't offending me - but it wouldn't be a big deal if you were. I appreciate the honest dialogue and I feel we are getting far closer to the "real" issue than what is discussed in other places.

You have painted a vivid picture of the negatives to existing gyms when a "major" brand opens a new business (or takes over an existing one) and disrupts a local market. I won't deny that there are negatives. I have been on the other side and feel there can be positives for the athletes, coaches and the industry as well. In our new locations, we do have athletes that used to be at other gyms, but we also pull in athletes that were not doing all star at all or who had already quit the industry. I am also a true believer in our philosophy and product, so I think that in most cases, the athletes and their families have a better experience with us than they do in the other gyms. We aren't perfect and we are always working to get better, but it isn't just the same exact product with a different color uniform. I understand that others are going to feel the same way about their gym.

I am legitimately unsure of exactly what role our governing body should take in regulating or managing this. I can see both sides. (Well, I can one side very clearly and am trying to see the other side.).
 
[/QUOTE] You have painted a vivid picture of the negatives to existing gyms when a "major" brand opens a new business (or takes over an existing one) and disrupts a local market. I won't deny that there are negatives. I have been on the other side and feel there can be positives for the athletes, coaches and the industry as well. In our new locations, we do have athletes that used to be at other gyms, but we also pull in athletes that were not doing all star at all or who had already quit the industry. I am also a true believer in our philosophy and product, so I think that in most cases, the athletes and their families have a better experience with us than they do in the other gyms. We aren't perfect and we are always working to get better, but it isn't just the same exact product with a different color uniform. I understand that others are going to feel the same way about their gym.

I am legitimately unsure of exactly what role our governing body should take in regulating or managing this. I can see both sides. (Well, I can one side very clearly and am trying to see the other side.).[/QUOTE]

I may not be the one to ask this question, but I feel there is little they can do. They can not and should not be in the business of telling gyms how to run their business. This includes telling me because I am a USASF registered coach I can't diversify my business to offer other programs that my clientele wants and can afford because I should be trying to get more cheerleaders to compete USASF. And we can not I think legally (business wise) say that for example mega been crushing Worlds since the Stone Age gym A can not compete D2 against Mom and Pop Twisters Trying to Survive if that gym location meets all other criteria for D2 other than the name. That to me includes where they expand or put satellite locations. What they should be doing in enforcing rules fairly across the board without partiality or preference regardless of gym size, brand, etc. These things you cant legislate in my opinion.

What could the governing board do? (If they are not against their business interests...)

Set a solid number as to D1 vs D2. I would like it to be higher but no more that 150

Set a crossover rule concerning main locations and satellites and stick to it. (In the past I have seen gyms use crossovers from other locations to help a weaker team get a bid for the program)

Establish clear and transparent bid process available for all to see - bids have become big business for all (rightly or wrongly) so there must be accountability.

Follow printed bid process as published or be sanctioned/lose bids.

If mistake is made own up to it IMMEDIATELY. No more letting it fade away from public conciseness then making a phone call we will just give you a bid anyway moments.

Prevent gyms from using crossovers from multiple locations to "fill holes" or to strengthen a teams bid chances only to then take those kids off the team once the bid is obtained opening up those spots for new recruits.

Allow D2 gyms to have L5 teams compete at D2 Summit in SMAG and SMCOED. This allows gyms to build that level without necessarily being a Worlds gym. If you win you are mandated that team competes D1 from then on out. You could even make it top 3 if it is a deep division. Make it a big ceremony at D2 during awards. (This is something that we do in Power Tumbling and I love it. Keeps athletes from sandbagging for years at the same level)

Now if we could really dream

You can not recruit athletes from other competitive cheer programs Oct 1 thru May 31. While I detest recruiting it hasn't stopped since I came into this side of the industry in 2004 every rule put in place loopholes have been found quickly. Just have a season for it and enforce it. Because they are doing it anyway. (I still wouldn't because it is against my personal code of ethics but could support a rule defining and limiting it with appropriate punishments)

No scholarships after that date as well. Parents are quick to leave a gym they have to pay tuition to a gym that is giving them a free ride. No we have open positions social media posts. This also fuels the anti big brand name bias.

Any athlete that switches gyms after that time must not only have a written release signed by coach and gym owner (since they could be different) but there should be a private USASF spreadsheet database as well where you as a registered coach can see if the athlete was cleared.

Did I mention independent judging board yet? LOL.
 
Last edited:
I am generally in favor of an independent body for judges - particularly safety/deductions.

I am not sure how to define or regulate recruiting. What is defined as "recruiting" also varies tremendously and would be hard to police effectively. We now have to deal with the phenomenon of "fake recruiting" where someone is calling athletes at other gyms and claiming to be a coach at CA and offering as immediate spots on elite teams as a joke/prank. I wish I were kidding, but we deal with this multiple times a season. I don't know if they are trying to stir up trouble between gyms, embarrass the athlete, or just generally cause chaos, but it is a real thing. I think it is underhanded to directly target someone you know to be a part of another program, but I don't know how to realistically enforce that.

I don't have an issue with L5 divisions at D2 Summit, although I am not really a fan of extending the reach and range of either Summit.

I am OK with strictly limiting athlete-sharing between same-brand gyms if those gyms are claiming to be independent.

I am OK with forcing EPs to stick to their published bid process.

I don't like enrollment being the main determining factor for D1/D2 for many reasons, but if it is in use, it needs to be a number that roughly equally divides the athletes or teams on both sides. D2 is far deeper at most of the events we go to now - raising the limit changes the D1/D2 dynamic even more. It was initially set up as a special protected classification for the smallest gyms to grow - now it feels like it is about isolating the largest programs to limit their growth.
 
So looking at the differences....

How to deal with recruiting? That is an admittedly hard one. This is one I have struggled on having lost many athletes to larger well known gyms. I have been dead set against it in any form for years. I have modified to the point that since it is going to happen regardless, best thing to do s to figure a way to allow it to happen within reason that we can come to agreement on. Now what that is I do not know at all.

How would you deal with definition if not by enrollment? I am open to suggestions on that.

The only reason I am good with letting D2 gyms compete at Summit is it gives them a chance to actually develop those teams. It is a much different look IMO when you are competing a first year L5 team from a team that its members are basically the alternates to a gyms showcase brand name team. I have been in favor of something like this since Jamfest bought US Finals. Let a gym build then jump into the deep waters.

It seems to me that the big button issue for many D1 gyms is lack of competition and with D2 the ability of gyms not to have to compete directly against D1 gym for athletes, bids, trophies, marketing, etc. My question is do you want competition for competition appearances sake or truly competitive competition?

For example in 2012 we fielded a Level 5 team. Based on numbers and makeup for the team it would of been a Large Coed team. IF we had stayed Large Coed, we would of gotten a full paid bid to Worlds simply because of the number of bids and the way bids were handed out. Easily we could of gamed the system. We would of been the first gym in our demographic to get a Full paid Bid to Worlds. It would of been marketing gold. But we knew that that team would of been a very weak Level 5 team. We would not of been competitive to any of the true World Contender teams in Large Coed out there. Frankly we would of looked way out of place. There is no way we would of been competitive, but we would of been competition. Last place competition, but it would of been another team to beat. Just being brutally honest.

When we reassessed the squad at the appropriate have skills and routine pieces together deadline, we made several decisions. We ended up taking the team Small Coed, offering spots on other teams to some (we did not crossover athletes except in case of injury or illness) and let others go due to bad financials. While that was very bad marketing for us locally especially with the ones that went to other programs, it was the best thing we could of done as a business because we firmed up or financial foundation. That Small Coed team still ended up getting an At Large bid, and just barely missed making it to day 2, better than any gym in our demographic.

If you just want more teams to compete against, then I agree lowering the enrollment number does that. If you want competitive competition a mandate system like I suggested even if used for all levels would work. Implement it Levels 1 - 5. It would take one year to implement, if that. It truly could be marketing gold for V (cant believe I am helping them out on this one) You win you move up. You make the podium with at least 10 teams in your division at D2 Summit, you move up. You place top 5 with more than 20 teams, you move up. It rewards those that have achieved prevents sandbagging in D2 to avoid stronger competition, adds #'s to D1 to address that issue. Obviously if a gym has 2-3 teams that end up being mandated, taking the whole gym D1 is a much easier step.

There will always be some that say it is a different year and team and should not be "punished" because of the success of last year's team. I disagree. It is not a punishment it is a promotion. And yes you will get your butt kicked a few times or perhaps a few years. But you can not stay in the small competition pond being #1 forever. As a D2 small gym proponent I don't want that.
 
Back