All-Star Usasf/naccc Results Posted

Num1Stunta said:

Story of my LIFE lol... btw, I am sure you are as happy about the large size vote as I am! At least something went well here

Click to expand...

kingston said:

No one likes a wannabe script kiddie.

Click to expand...

kingston said:

I am for the sport! I don't know if we will see a huge affect next season, but the season after I think that is when people will really start using the new size.

Click to expand...

nccheerdad said:

I have all the respect in the world for the small gyms in America. If you have read any of my previous posts, you would believe me. They are what makes the cheerleading world go around and I absolutely love watching them compete. So, small gym owners/athletes/parents, please don't be offended by what I am about to post.

In looking at the voting results more carefully, I have some deep concerns about the sample used to determine these results. I don't have a vote in any of this, so I did not see the online poll that was completed, so that has me asking some pretty simple questions. Did the USASF collect data on who was actually voting (not names, but demographics)? Do they know the size of the gym that is represented with each vote? Do they know how many votes from each gym were included? Was there or will there be any weighting criteria based on gym membership used in the analysis? Were gyms limited to the number of votes allowed?

One of the reasons I ask these questions is to understand if the proposed rules changes were really that applicable to each and every voter. For example, let's take the heated issue of eliminating Youth 5. A total of 681 votes were tabulated on whether to keep this division or not. That, to me, is a heck of a lot of votes for an issue that really ony impacts less than, say, 5% of the actual voters. If all Stingrays, WC, CEA, CA, ECE, and three or four other gyms' coaches and owners voted, we might be looking at 70 votes at the most. That means that almost 600 "others" are determining the fate of this division - a division in which most will never even get to play. How many of these are small gyms within 60 miles of these large Y5 centers that are fearful of losing there most talented kids down the line? I understand the goal to grow the sport and increase competition, but this would be taking a major step backwards to develop the talent that we have become accustomed to.

Another example would be the push to limit skill sets in the various divisions to increase safety. Again, if so many people are voting to make things "safer," you should probably also wonder how many voted to make these divisions "easier." It's not fair to limit the programs that can actually perform these skills well (safely and effectively) as they wait around for others to catch up. It's like telling a baseball pitcher who can throw the ball really, really fast that he has to throw underhand so he doesn't hurt anyone and so that the other team has a chance to hit the ball.

Again, I am not trying to diminish the importance of the small gym owner, but the total influence/impact needs to be scrutinized. What I have said could also be applicable to many medium-sized gyms who just haven't been that successful in competition.

I hope that the USASF and whoever else makes the final decisions on rules changes takes into consideration the weight of the voting population and how some of these changes would negatively impact the growth potential of this sport that we all love.

Click to expand...

nccheerdad said:

I have all the respect in the world for the small gyms in America. If you have read any of my previous posts, you would believe me. They are what makes the cheerleading world go around and I absolutely love watching them compete. So, small gym owners/athletes/parents, please don't be offended by what I am about to post.

In looking at the voting results more carefully, I have some deep concerns about the sample used to determine these results. I don't have a vote in any of this, so I did not see the online poll that was completed, so that has me asking some pretty simple questions. Did the USASF collect data on who was actually voting (not names, but demographics)? Do they know the size of the gym that is represented with each vote? Do they know how many votes from each gym were included? Was there or will there be any weighting criteria based on gym membership used in the analysis? Were gyms limited to the number of votes allowed?

One of the reasons I ask these questions is to understand if the proposed rules changes were really that applicable to each and every voter. For example, let's take the heated issue of eliminating Youth 5. A total of 681 votes were tabulated on whether to keep this division or not. That, to me, is a heck of a lot of votes for an issue that really ony impacts less than, say, 5% of the actual voters. If all Stingrays, WC, CEA, CA, ECE, and three or four other gyms' coaches and owners voted, we might be looking at 70 votes at the most. That means that almost 600 "others" are determining the fate of this division - a division in which most will never even get to play. How many of these are small gyms within 60 miles of these large Y5 centers that are fearful of losing there most talented kids down the line? I understand the goal to grow the sport and increase competition, but this would be taking a major step backwards to develop the talent that we have become accustomed to.

Another example would be the push to limit skill sets in the various divisions to increase safety. Again, if so many people are voting to make things "safer," you should probably also wonder how many voted to make these divisions "easier." It's not fair to limit the programs that can actually perform these skills well (safely and effectively) as they wait around for others to catch up. It's like telling a baseball pitcher who can throw the ball really, really fast that he has to throw underhand so he doesn't hurt anyone and so that the other team has a chance to hit the ball.

Again, I am not trying to diminish the importance of the small gym owner, but the total influence/impact needs to be scrutinized. What I have said could also be applicable to many medium-sized gyms who just haven't been that successful in competition.

I hope that the USASF and whoever else makes the final decisions on rules changes takes into consideration the weight of the voting population and how some of these changes would negatively impact the growth potential of this sport that we all love.

Click to expand...

kingston said:

I think the Tax ID's are the most interesting because in effect it will have nothing to do with what happens on the mat (for example Happy stated he would just have one umbrella Tax ID to represent ACE to keep it as one giant program). It is a way for us to define a gym. But in turn that means a gym will have to be a legal entity. I think Justin stated that over half the customers do not have a Tax ID (for the Varsity family rebate plan).

Click to expand...

xpressjag said:

I think the original idea behind this policy was to field teams from a single location instead of making these super teams which are becoming popular across the coutry. These multiple gym owners will still find ways for their advanced kids to participate on their satellite gyms teams.

Click to expand...

Num1Stunta said:

Personally, now that the tax id definition of a program is in place, I think it should be ONE VOTE per GYM. Get your staff together and hash it out, then submit your gym's vote on each rule. Seems like that would solve it, no? It places Large and Small Gyms on an even playing field. The current system, imo, puts small gyms at a disadvantage. We only have 4 certified coaches at our gym, as opposed to some of the larger gyms who have upwards of what 10,15, 20? It just seems that giving each program one vote, that would be fair, no?

Click to expand...

ultimatelegacy said:

If the age grid changes to 6/9/12/15/18 doesn't this mean that any tiny, mini, youth, or junior team from the 10-11 (this) season can remain exactly the same for the 11-12 (next) season? That's crazy to think that no one will have to age up.

Click to expand...