All-Star Summit 2019 Changes

So so excited about the open 4 rule. I have been working so hard for two years to try and get level five skills to try for an open five team to continue my cheer career but realistically those skills probably weren't going to happen. Hopefully, the addition of the summit will encourage more gyms to field this division.

The summit open 4 is for ages 14 and up?

Keep_Believing said:

The summit open 4 is for ages 14 and up?

Click to expand...

Yes. It's International, so that's IASF. Though both USASF and IASF have Open 4 at 14+, so that doesn't really matter I guess.

luv2cheer92 said:

Yes. It's International, so that's IASF. Though both USASF and IASF have Open 4 at 14+, so that doesn't really matter I guess.

Click to expand...

Oh, I thought IASF was 17 and up. It is so confusing that I can't keep up. LOL

Keep_Believing said:

Oh, I thought IASF was 17 and up. It is so confusing that I can't keep up. LOL

Click to expand...

Haha, yea the differences are confusing. They both did change though.

Understandably, Varsity wants as many teams as possible at the event. (Just like gyms want more athletes to try out for their teams.) They aren't realistically limited by hotel space or logistics, just competition venue capacity. WCs directly advancing to finals is a more efficient use of the venue. Saturday is likely their bottleneck. Fewer teams competing 3 times means more total teams you can cram into the weekend (and more bids to entice teams to events). It also adds some value to the the Varsity one-day events.

BlueCat said:

Understandably, Varsity wants as many teams as possible at the event. (Just like gyms want more athletes to try out for their teams.) They aren't realistically limited by hotel space or logistics, just competition venue capacity. WCs directly advancing to finals is a more efficient use of the venue. Saturday is likely their bottleneck. Fewer teams competing 3 times means more total teams you can cram into the weekend (and more bids to entice teams to events). It also adds some value to the the Varsity one-day events.

Click to expand...

By advancing more, it will entice more teams to compete and accept at WC events. However if they end up giving out more WC bids because of it, it might make the WC day still unappealing.

BlueCat said:

Understandably, Varsity wants as many teams as possible at the event. (Just like gyms want more athletes to try out for their teams.) They aren't realistically limited by hotel space or logistics, just competition venue capacity. WCs directly advancing to finals is a more efficient use of the venue. Saturday is likely their bottleneck. Fewer teams competing 3 times means more total teams you can cram into the weekend (and more bids to entice teams to events). It also adds some value to the the Varsity one-day events.

Click to expand...

Just a shame that a more efficient use of venue and a hunger for more teams at the event trumps what should be offered to these teams.... a real chance to feel like they win something worth while.
The athletes spend a lot of time working and conditioning and training, coaches spend a lot of time planning and perfecting and fixing, parents spend a lot of time and money making sure their athletes can preform... all to get the prestigious honor of a Summit bid. The bids should mean something more then just Varsity’s strategic way of cramming as many teams possible into their year end event.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ve always viewed the different bids as more of an earned tiered status. To get a WC is a huge accomplishment and something to be proud of. To get an At-Large bid is just a little better... maybe it means that you were able to win at a bigger competition where there were more teams fighting for the bid? To get a paid bid means that the competition saw something special about you and they feel good about having you represent their name.
I think that’s why I was hoping Varsity would treat bids with a little more of the competitive edge and not so much of how much money can we make and how many teams can we efficiently cram into an event. One motto about Summit is to tell teams it’s all about the climb... well to me this new WC move actually tells teams it has nothing to do with the climb, it’s more about dumping us all off at the top and watching us push each other off.

On a good point, in the end there is still only one winner.

SteelCheerCE said:

Just a shame that a more efficient use of venue and a hunger for more teams at the event trumps what should be offered to these teams.... a real chance to feel like they win something worth while.
The athletes spend a lot of time working and conditioning and training, coaches spend a lot of time planning and perfecting and fixing, parents spend a lot of time and money making sure their athletes can preform... all to get the prestigious honor of a Summit bid. The bids should mean something more then just Varsity’s strategic way of cramming as many teams possible into their year end event.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ve always viewed the different bids as more of an earned tiered status. To get a WC is a huge accomplishment and something to be proud of. To get an At-Large bid is just a little better... maybe it means that you were able to win at a bigger competition where there were more teams fighting for the bid? To get a paid bid means that the competition saw something special about you and they feel good about having you represent their name.
I think that’s why I was hoping Varsity would treat bids with a little more of the competitive edge and not so much of how much money can we make and how many teams can we efficiently cram into an event. One motto about Summit is to tell teams it’s all about the climb... well to me this new WC move actually tells teams it has nothing to do with the climb, it’s more about dumping us all off at the top and watching us push each other off.

Click to expand...

I don't think Varsity is being cynical. I believe they generally want what is best for the athletes and the industry. However, they are in the event producing business and that is driven by entry fees. Bigger events = more revenue and more bids is more incentive to go to their various competitions (and away from the independent event producers). Bigger events also offer more opportunity to advertise their other products (uniforms, shoes, etc.). In fairness to Varsity, the event is actually well-run and enjoyable for the most part.

I think has added some prestige to the end-of-year event, but it has diminished the prestige of most of the "regular" season events in the process. I hate to see teams win at a national championship that used to be their main goal and be more worried about how their score compares to someone in another division in another hall to find out if their name is going to be called out on a website the next day. I personally think that is a net loss for the industry.

Does anyone know if the rules for X small will stay the same? For example ; only one allowed at Worlds per a gym?

Keep_Believing said:

Does anyone know if the rules for X small will stay the same? For example ; only one allowed at Worlds per a gym?

Click to expand...

Someone mentioned that they are waiting until after Worlds to decide that.

BlueCat said:

I don't think Varsity is being cynical. I believe they generally want what is best for the athletes and the industry. However, they are in the event producing business and that is driven by entry fees. Bigger events = more revenue and more bids is more incentive to go to their various competitions (and away from the independent event producers). Bigger events also offer more opportunity to advertise their other products (uniforms, shoes, etc.). Also, the event is actually well-run and enjoyable for the most part.

I think has added some prestige to the end-of-year event, but it has diminished the prestige of most of the "regular" season events in the process. I hate to see teams win at a national championship that used to be their main goal and be more worried about how their score compares to someone in another division in another hall to find out if their name is going to be called out on a website the next day. I personally think that is a net loss for the industry.

Click to expand...

Yes our R5 lost a paid bid to SR 1. Can't compare the 2 divisions for $$.

I'm definitely new here....but I do have a different perspective on the Wild Card advancement. We have been at two gyms.....one who went mostly to competitions where At Large and Paid bids were offered and our new gym, where we mostly we attend local competitions that only Wild Card bids are offered. Of course....our previous gym has a ton of Paid and At Large bids. Our new gym is mostly Wild Card. And some of those Wild Card divisions are just huge! And it truly has nothing to do with the quality of the teams, it just has to do with who is willing to travel far and wide for those Paid Bids. So I can definitely see why Varsity would want to make the Wild Card bid more attractive. To some athletes, it's almost there only option. I do however miss those days where winning a competition was the main attraction. The shift to seeing who is grand in their division or level and in line for a Summit bid is definitely a different feeling

BlueCat said:

I don't think Varsity is being cynical. I believe they generally want what is best for the athletes and the industry. However, they are in the event producing business and that is driven by entry fees. Bigger events = more revenue and more bids is more incentive to go to their various competitions (and away from the independent event producers). Bigger events also offer more opportunity to advertise their other products (uniforms, shoes, etc.). In fairness to Varsity, the event is actually well-run and enjoyable for the most part.

I think has added some prestige to the end-of-year event, but it has diminished the prestige of most of the "regular" season events in the process. I hate to see teams win at a national championship that used to be their main goal and be more worried about how their score compares to someone in another division in another hall to find out if their name is going to be called out on a website the next day. I personally think that is a net loss for the industry.

Click to expand...

Your right, Varsity does do a very good job of running their event. We have never had any complaints about that. In the end I do have to remember they are a company and they have a service to provide first and foremost. I guess Disney has me thinking too much into a fairytale. Lol

I couldn’t agree more with you on the diminished prestige of the regular season events. We are a very small gym in the middle of nowhere. Our goal for the past three years has been to show our athletes what’s out there in the Cheer world. We wanted to build their confidence and show them that not only could they can go to big competitions like NCA, Midwest Nationals, and UCA, but they could win them. The first two years were great! We went to and won a lot of those competitions and were happy.

Now our goals have shifted. It’s not good enough to win... we have to be better then everyone. Our athletes become discouraged, our parents get upset, and our coaches become frustrated. They seem to think there is no point to winning at these huge events if they get nothing for their efforts. Maybe next year goals will switch and we will go back to the world of small competitions with a better chance of a reward...a wild card. If there continues to be no real devide between the bids except for the events you compete at and the percentage is greater to attend the smaller competitions and get a bid that is equivalent, it seems like a no brainer to me.