All-Star Usasf/naccc Results Posted

Welcome to our Cheerleading Community

Members see FEWER ads... join today!

In the small/gym large gym thread I asked for examples of gyms taking advantage. I got plenty, but they all included event producers that made a mistake, don't do any research even for big name gyms to properly place small vs large gym categories, or actually had rules that allowed it.

Like many other rules, it will be up to the event producers to follow through on enforcement.

Oh I know... I didn't mean for this question to even touch on that whole topic... Rather I am trying to understand whether this whole EIN thing really will change anything when it comes to how gyms/programs define themselves. I guess I am wondering if this passes will it mean that multi gym locations using the same name and having the ability to share athletes can also have separate EIN numbers? So there is a gym near here that has two locations and two slightly different names (example Spirit West and Spirit East). They have separate teams and then for the level 5 teams they combine athletes. So at a comp you would see Spirit West, Spirit East and Spirit Supreme. Will the whole EIN number definition change the way they are able to form teams? Will they be able to still have "Supreme" (which is a combination of athletes on West and East) if West and East are separate EINs (accounting etc. done separately)

Ultimately what I am asking (distinct from small/large) is if multiple locations run using separate EINs... can they combine athletes???
 
As far as the % of crossovers on a given team, I'm just wondering how coaches pick on who gets to crossover then. Many kids just want to be able to do more than 1 team. Either they just love the thrill of competing or maybe they base on one team and fly on another. I think the proposed rule change for allowing only 20 or 25% could hurt a lot of small gyms as well.
 
I think the proposed rule change for allowing only 20 or 25% could hurt a lot of small gyms as well.

That is a big reason I don't like the low percentage as much. I really think a better crossover rule would have to do less with the raw percentage of crossover athletes and more about limiting crossing between levels.
 
I got it and think it was a great point. But for anyone else out there who would wanted to complain about results I would ask "are you and your gym a member?"

700 is an improvement and I like where the voting process is headed, but USASF can't be an effective governing body if the majority of the sport doesn't want to be governed.

I agree. I think the voting should play an important role in the process, but certainly not be the main deciding factor. I am a member of the USGA - the governing body of the sport of golf here in the US. I pay my annual membership dues, but I certainly don't have a "vote" on rules changes to the game. If I did, I am sure that there would be hundreds of thousands of other people like me who would vote to make the hole the size of a hoola-hoop, to be allowed to use your foot legally, and to be allowed a mulligan on every hole. That would certainly make it more "competitive" and I for once might have a shot at beating that retired airline pilot who lives down the street.

The point is that the rules changes to what is working pretty well right now, needs to be approached with caution and that complete understanding of what and who is driving the proposes changes is paramount.
 
the division is basically dead. there are very, very few teams competing in this division at this point, and not many of those are true level 5 teams. eliminating the division keeps gyms from finding a few level 5s, filling the rest of the team with lower level athletes, and pushing those lower level kids to quickly learn level 5 skills. i'm willing to bet it's much more difficult and dangerous to squeeze level 5 skills out of a 9 year old over the course of a summer than it would be with a 13 year old. if you've got a true level 5 youth-aged athlete, put them on junior 5. i have a feeling that's where most of the current youth 5 athletes are, anyway.

true...never looked at it that way
 
As far as the % of crossovers on a given team, I'm just wondering how coaches pick on who gets to crossover then. Many kids just want to be able to do more than 1 team. Either they just love the thrill of competing or maybe they base on one team and fly on another. I think the proposed rule change for allowing only 20 or 25% could hurt a lot of small gyms as well.

Initially, I thought the same thing... We had one team at our gym last year that was at 50% crossovers. BUT, this year, we said no more. In building the teams without crossovers, we have only ended up needing to use 2 in the whole program. I think for a small gym, it could be a good thing if you plan right. You're just going to end up with smaller, more level-appropriate teams.

I mean, say you have 16 junior aged kids... only 8 of them are level 1... build that team to 12 with 4 crossovers.... take your 8 junior 2s and build them to 12 with 4 crossovers from Junior 1 team. Having a team of 12 with 75% tumbling to start out with is not a bad deal at all. JMO

We try so hard to reach that golden # of 20, but it's not the end of the world to be competing with smaller teams. If my team of 20 can outscore teams of 36, I would also assume that a team of 12, 14, 16 could outscore a team of 20 if they are showing at-level skills.
 
Might should check your math
Initially, I thought the same thing... We had one team at our gym last year that was at 50% crossovers. BUT, this year, we said no more. In building the teams without crossovers, we have only ended up needing to use 2 in the whole program. I think for a small gym, it could be a good thing if you plan right. You're just going to end up with smaller, more level-appropriate teams.

I mean, say you have 16 junior aged kids... only 8 of them are level 1... build that team to 12 with 4 crossovers.... take your 8 junior 2s and build them to 12 with 4 crossovers from Junior 1 team. Having a team of 12 with 75% tumbling to start out with is not a bad deal at all. JMO

We try so hard to reach that golden # of 20, but it's not the end of the world to be competing with smaller teams. If my team of 20 can outscore teams of 36, I would also assume that a team of 12, 14, 16 could outscore a team of 20 if they are showing at-level skills.
 
Initially, I thought the same thing... We had one team at our gym last year that was at 50% crossovers. BUT, this year, we said no more. In building the teams without crossovers, we have only ended up needing to use 2 in the whole program. I think for a small gym, it could be a good thing if you plan right. You're just going to end up with smaller, more level-appropriate teams.

I mean, say you have 16 junior aged kids... only 8 of them are level 1... build that team to 12 with 4 crossovers.... take your 8 junior 2s and build them to 12 with 4 crossovers from Junior 1 team. Having a team of 12 with 75% tumbling to start out with is not a bad deal at all. JMO

We try so hard to reach that golden # of 20, but it's not the end of the world to be competing with smaller teams. If my team of 20 can outscore teams of 36, I would also assume that a team of 12, 14, 16 could outscore a team of 20 if they are showing at-level skills.

WOW... believe it or not, I almost got a perfect score on my math SAT... but that is ^^^^ embarrasing lmao.... I think that's a sign that I need to go to bed... hopefully you all get the point I was trying to make, before I failed miserably at basic math lol
 
true...never looked at it that way
the division is basically dead. there are very, very few teams competing in this division at this point, and not many of those are true level 5 teams. eliminating the division keeps gyms from finding a few level 5s, filling the rest of the team with lower level athletes, and pushing those lower level kids to quickly learn level 5 skills. i'm willing to bet it's much more difficult and dangerous to squeeze level 5 skills out of a 9 year old over the course of a summer than it would be with a 13 year old. if you've got a true level 5 youth-aged athlete, put them on junior 5. i have a feeling that's where most of the current youth 5 athletes are, anyway.

to add onto this... even youth 4 isnt such a strong division and seems to lack proper progression and competition. hopefully without y5 y4 can grow and those talented kids with fulls and doubles make it onto a j5 team.
 
Ran into an issue:
A local All-star gym is having its all-star tryouts this weekend and I will be helping with All star with team placements.
I have ran into the issue of wither or not #30 will pass. This is the rule that would change age limits to every 3 years starting at tiny being 6 and under, mini 9 and under.... and so forth...
They have promised tryout results to be posted Sunday night.
What direction would you take if you were in this situation?
They are a mostly "younger age" gym and this rule will affect there team placement in a huge way.
Should I go by the current age guidelines, or go ahead and make teams as if the new rule will pass?
 
Jennaw said:
Ran into an issue:
A local All-star gym is having its all-star tryouts this weekend and I will be helping with All star with team placements.
I have ran into the issue of wither or not #30 will pass. This is the rule that would change age limits to every 3 years starting at tiny being 6 and under, mini 9 and under.... and so forth...
They have promised tryout results to be posted Sunday night.
What direction would you take if you were in this situation?
They are a mostly "younger age" gym and this rule will affect there team placement in a huge way.
Should I go by the current age guidelines, or go ahead and make teams as if the new rule will pass?

I would hold tryouts a month later
 
I would hold tryouts a month later
:) That was my first thought , but its not an option. They are a small Large gym (if that makes since)... and they did not compete NCA this year. They do not have any level 5 teams, so they just literally tryout for a new team the week after their last nationals.... weird, i know.
 
:) That was my first thought , but its not an option. They are a small Large gym (if that makes since)... and they did not compete NCA this year. They do not have any level 5 teams, so they just literally tryout for a new team the week after their last nationals.... weird, i know.

You can call/email Les and ask for advice. The rulings are supposed to come out March 1st I think? But maybe he can guide you in the right direction for that one.
 
Back