All-Star Worlds Age Change???

@Ashley sorry

Peazlovecheer said:

Sorry this is not Worlds related, but since there were comments about lower levels too, I thought I'd ask here. New rules still show as "coming soon" on our usasf member page. Hopefully the link will be up soon, however, CP is currently on Level 3 and has been working Level 4 skills which now might be obsolete for next season if I've read some comments correctly (and it's possible I didn't). :/ I apologize if I've missed it somewhere in the couple of threads I was reading through, but if someone has the new 2018-2019 rules for Level 3 and 4 skill changes, would you mind sending them to me please? Thanks very much.

Click to expand...

Level 4 will only be able to tucks in standing tumbling instead of layouts, if I'm remembering correctly.

Ashley said:

No, you don't. But I don't know why anyone would take a team of 14-18 year olds and go International instead of Senior. There's less competition locally (especially IO5), only top 10 move out of US Trials to Semi-Finals and only top 3 US teams make finals. And if you're coed, good luck competing with your teenage boys against the strength of grown men.

Click to expand...

I don't think this new division would work like INternational open. It's a USASF division, so I would imagine that worlds would be the same as it is for the senior 5 teams but you are right, it would be a gamble not knowing if you are competing against true "adults" or not if you have smaller athletes. But could work as an extra team as mentioned above if you wanted 2 small coed teams or all girl teams and you didn't want them to compete against each other. Also there is no mention of not being able to have both at worlds like there is with XS and Small S5 teams.

Lablover said:

Not worlds related but do you think the age grid change will end the few remaining youth 5s? 9-11 years old is a tight age division to get enough flyers, bases and backspots with level 5 skills.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but honestly Y5 as a division has been dying for years considering there are only two left in the country. I would hate to say goodbye to YE and Twinkles but I can't imagine its much fun to have nobody to compete against

Adrirocks said:

Maybe, but honestly Y5 as a division has been dying for years considering there are only two left in the country. I would hate to say goodbye to YE and Twinkles but I can't imagine its much fun to have nobody to compete against

Click to expand...

I thought they were y5 but someone else said they were restricted. I knew I should haved looked on my own, lol.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

LateKate3 said:

I thought they were y5 but someone else said they were restricted. I knew I should haved looked on my own, lol.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Y5 is restricted and has been for years.
ETA: 2012 there was both Y5 and YR5, 2013 it became restricted only. It wasn't always called restricted, but it was. And it's actually more restricted than junior and senior R5.

Jonathan Brouillette said:

. My solution would be to require skill sets on a Worlds team for every athlete. If your highest score during the year was an 89 you should not be going to Worlds. These opinions are mine and do not represent any establishment.

Click to expand...

The only “problem” I see with your solution is the secrecy of scores... it would be great to see the scores of all the squads you’re competing against. I mean, I know the coaches get scores but how many are sharing with the kids? Are the coaches just making changes to routines based on scores and telling the kids something generic like “we have to make changes to get a higher score”
My kid actually likes to know what went wrong and what she specifically could do to do better either individually or with her stunt groups. Our gym is actually pretty open when it comes to asking questions about the scoring and what the kids need to work on and how the parents can help - but we still have to ask for the info. Before we were involved with cheer, I wouldn’t have believed anyone telling me that the final scores of a sporting event are a big giant secret. Then, welcome to cheer!

I even think your 89 is generous, I’d think 92/93 - it’s supposed to be elite squads right? Think about when you get to February/March and they’re still giving out bids...all the higher scoring squads got their bids already so they start playing the pass the buck game with the bids and before you know it, by default the squad that came in last place with a not so great score is going to Disney... it doesn’t seem right or fair! If the squad doesn’t earn the bid they shouldn’t get it. Consider how the athletes feel knowing that maybe they aren’t in the top tier of squads, but yet they get the “you happened to be here bid and all the other squads had bids already, so...” and then they go to compete and wonder why their coach allowed them to compete knowing rightfully so that this wasn’t their year. It’s such a morale buster.

If these gyms focused more on the athlete and the athletes abilities instead of making a team of the next level because they want to push the envelope, there would be a lot of stronger teams competing in each level.

Sorry, I’m off my soap box now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

naaans said:

I even think your 89 is generous, I’d think 92/93 - it’s supposed to be elite squads right? Think about when you get to February/March and they’re still giving out bids...all the higher scoring squads got their bids already so they start playing the pass the buck game with the bids and before you know it, by default the squad that came in last place with a not so great score is going to Disney... it doesn’t seem right or fair! If the squad doesn’t earn the bid they shouldn’t get it. Consider how the athletes feel knowing that maybe they aren’t in the top tier of squads, but yet they get the “you happened to be here bid and all the other squads had bids already, so...” and then they go to compete and wonder why their coach allowed them to compete knowing rightfully so that this wasn’t their year. It’s such a morale buster.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I think that most of the teams who go to Worlds on a passed down AL bid earned in April know that they do not stand a chance, as do the teams that earn them early in the season at a jank competition. I can understand going once for the experience. Beyond that I blame not only the coach but also the parents who finance everything for allowing it.

I have a totally different opinion. The current system is a huge unneeded advantage for the event producers (you have to chase bids by paying entry fees to their events). I say let practically any team attend that wishes and do away with the concept of "at large" bids. I am OK with still having paid bids or similar. The location can handle all of the Senior 5 (and international) teams at this point.

Winning the event is prestigious, IMO, because of the depth and quality of the field, not because it is hard to qualify for. Having "below-average" (by Worlds standards) teams in the early rounds isn't hurting anything.

The idea needs some details worked out.

Can someone confirm that the tumble changes are happening and what they are? Everything I’ve seen is about the age grid but not tumble rules (except for on this thread)!

The rules and grid will be released to the public (including athletes & parents) in March I believe.

BlueCat said:

I have a totally different opinion. The current system is a huge unneeded advantage for the event producers (you have to chase bids by paying entry fees to their events). I say let practically any team attend that wishes and do away with the concept of "at large" bids. I am OK with still having paid bids or similar. The location can handle all of the Senior 5 (and international) teams at this point.

Winning the event is prestigious, IMO, because of the depth and quality of the field, not because it is hard to qualify for. Having "below-average" (by Worlds standards) teams in the early rounds isn't hurting anything.

The idea needs some details worked out.

Click to expand...

I have thought this myself. When you look at how many teams you have to bring to be eligible for a bid at some comps it just seems crazy to me. I’m even okay with them doing something to appease eps, like stating you have to compete at least one comp with your roster before you can attend worlds. Or making a requirement that a gym must compete in that level at a set number of events to be eligible to go to worlds.

I’d really prefer a qualifying score, like they do in gymnastics... but can’t think of how that would work without better scoring transparency and accountability.

All of the event producers don't use the same scoring system or scale, so a "standard score" is problematic. None of them currently use same scoring or scoring philosophy as Worlds either.

BlueCat said:

All of the event producers don't use the same scoring system or scale, so a "standard score" is problematic. None of them currently use same scoring or scoring philosophy as Worlds either.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I have to remind myself that scores can't be compared across competitions. When there are different judging panels, scores can't even be compared within the same competition. Instead of scores, placement at comps is how I judge how well my cp's team is doing compared to others. When scoring is consistent and transparent, then a minimum score could be used for a variety of things.

I know that this is a Worlds thread, but for us lower level cheer families, US Finals is often the big end of the year comp. It is my understanding that last year they stopped ranking teams because it was acknowledged that scoring was inconsistent between the US Finals locations. I've been told that it was well known that the VA Beach Finals location was known for either the hardest or easiest scoring (I can't remember which) and that some teams partially made their decision about which location to attend based on that.

alpaca said:

Exactly. I have to remind myself that scores can't be compared across competitions. When there are different judging panels, scores can't even be compared within the same competition. Instead of scores, placement at comps is how I judge how well my cp's team is doing compared to others. When scoring is consistent and transparent, then a minimum score could be used for a variety of things.

I know that this is a Worlds thread, but for us lower level cheer families, US Finals is often the big end of the year comp. It is my understanding that last year they stopped ranking teams because it was acknowledged that scoring was inconsistent between the US Finals locations. I've been told that it was well known that the VA Beach Finals location was known for either the hardest or easiest scoring (I can't remember which) and that some teams partially made their decision about which location to attend based on that.

Click to expand...

Haven’t done US Finals in a few years but VB always had more in the top rankings than any of the other locations combined.