All-Star Proposed Age Changes For Next Season From Doral.

mecheermom said:

And honestly I have heard "junior" aged kids speaking more inappropriately around 10 year olds than 17-18 year olds. The 12-14 yr olds tend to see a 10 yr old as a peer. The 17-18 year olds don't think of a 10-11 yr old as a peer and therefore watch what they say more.


Mommy to CP and BP!
The Fierce Board App!

Click to expand...

That's a really good point! Recently I have noticed too that the older girls are the ones that view the young ones as little sisters and want to preserve their innocence. In the 13-15 age range though are the girls who are just finding out about some "bad" stuff and since they view the young ones as friends and think that stuff is cool to talk about, they talk about it in front of them. Of course every athlete is a unique circumstance, it's just a trend I have also noticed.

I am a director of a small gym, and I think that a bottom age on Sr's is a first priority. It is time to do away with tiny, fetus flyers. To limit the Sr division to 12 or 13 yrs old will NOT destroy anyone. It will just mean that the teams will be more developmentally appropriate. Any gym who relies on 10 or 11 yr olds to fill their Sr team needs to re-evaluate.

I see the lower age limit more as 'time to get all your skills before moving up". I know young girls who got their full to be on a 5 (and surprisingly are), but cannot do a decent or any layout, standing tuck, series pass. If you know you're staying on a J4 for two more years due to age, might as well learn the J4 skills.


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

CGAcheer said:

what about it do you feel is broken?

Click to expand...

Ok, so you asked and I am about to give you my soapbox.

I believe in cheerleading, as is in life, most people just want a fair shot. They want to feel like they got a fair chance in whatever contest they are attempting. Yes they will not enjoy and probably complain about losing (if they do as would I) but it takes the truly enlightened to realize if someone is upset they lost or upset they never had a chance to begin with. Competing in something where you never have the opportunity to accomplish the realistic goals that are in front of you is very disheartening and people get very passionate. On the opposite are those who get defensive from the passionate people calling that their contest was never fair to begin with (they never had a fair shot). They believe the people are just complaining because they lost and lots of times they are missing that those with a disgruntled voice have a point.

So, with that being said it takes an outsider with less emotion in the game to see the overall big picture.

First I think small gyms and large gyms should play by different age floors. Let anyone who wants to compete in small gym have no age floors. And to qualify out of small gym I think it should be two solid years over the small gym limit to move up and out (this gives time to adjust for sudden success). Every division in small gym should be 'open' but no small gym should be allowed to compete at Worlds (prevents people from abusing this). This would allow a small gym to make their teams and compete on a level-ish playing field.

Next when you compete at a competition there should be NO separation between small gym and large gym. They compete in the same divisions and when awards are called out They should announce the overall champion (whoever it is), the small gym champion (unless it is the same as the overall), and then everyone else is listed by score as 2nd - last. On the scoresheet just * when someone is a small gym and assign them small gym placements. (like 10th overall but 2nd small gym). Now you will always have more teams to compete in divisions, small gyms have a slight advantage, but no one feels like they are getting a trophy just to get a trophy.

Last large gyms should have floors to correctly correlate people with the right age group. Yes a small gym and area it is better to have an 8 year old on that senior 3 so they can compete than not compete at all, but at the gyms where they do have the numbers you should correctly place kids by age as much as possible. It means Worlds teams are less likely to fly itty bitties because of age (yes there are those who will be itty bitty because of who they are, my wife is one of them and that is fine). It means kids are more likely to stay with their small program longer if they cannot do Worlds until an older age (see helping the small gym). It means the junior divisions will stop suffering (they have gotten smaller and started flying younger flyers because they lost all their flyers to older teams).

It means a better long term plan for everyone. Good rules and divisions are not about making just next year better, but about making things grow correctly in the right direction.

Starting Seniors at 13 would cost small town teams (do not confuse this with small gyms) in a bind. I am a Coach of a small town team, our goals aren't Worlds or even Nationals. Its just giving girls something to do, to build self esteem, to learn hoe to work together. And since we are small we only have one team, so our ages usually are 10-18. I could live with 12 but to put the cut-off at 13, it might be one year but even that would cause us to lose 2-3 girls. And we usually have 17-20 members.

The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

I "DO" like these ages..........

two2cheer4 said:

What if the ranges were expanded a little that the majority of the ages fit into 2 age groups:

Tiny 4-6
Mini 5-9
Youth 7-11
Junior 10-14
Senior 12-18

Click to expand...

The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

I agree with the fact that the system is broken. You'd have to be crazy to say that pitting a youth team with five year old flyers against a team with 8/9 year old flyers is an equal match. I think there needs to be some sort of age floor on all divisions, but ones that include an overlap. Im sorry, a seven year old doesn't belong on a junior team.

And for people saying that it will cause young kids not to get to cheer...let's say that you have a small town small gym that fields a youth 2 as their lowest level. Is it really good for a five year old to be on that team just because they want to cheer? Who does that really benefit?


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

INeverStopCheering said:

I agree with the fact that the system is broken. You'd have to be crazy to say that pitting a youth team with five year old flyers against a team with 8/9 year old flyers is an equal match. I think there needs to be some sort of age floor on all divisions, but ones that include an overlap. Im sorry, a seven year old doesn't belong on a junior team.

And for people saying that it will cause young kids not to get to cheer...let's say that you have a small town small gym that fields a youth 2 as their lowest level. Is it really good for a five year old to be on that team just because they want to cheer? Who does that really benefit?


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

Click to expand...

There isn't gonna be a benefit because typically a 5 year old is not gonna have the experience or body control of an 8 year old. And if they do, they deserve the spot on the team, why hold them back if they are successful, mature and able? And only the coach and parent will know that, not some blind across the board age limit.


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

CoachKelly said:

I "DO" like these ages..........




The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

Click to expand...

But what happens if you only have one or two 6 years olds? Do you turn them away and tell them to come back next year when they are 7?

King said:

Ok, so you asked and I am about to give you my soapbox.

I believe in cheerleading, as is in life, most people just want a fair shot. They want to feel like they got a fair chance in whatever contest they are attempting. Yes they will not enjoy and probably complain about losing (if they do as would I) but it takes the truly enlightened to realize if someone is upset they lost or upset they never had a chance to begin with. Competing in something where you never have the opportunity to accomplish the realistic goals that are in front of you is very disheartening and people get very passionate. On the opposite are those who get defensive from the passionate people calling that their contest was never fair to begin with (they never had a fair shot). They believe the people are just complaining because they lost and lots of times they are missing that those with a disgruntled voice have a point.

So, with that being said it takes an outsider with less emotion in the game to see the overall big picture.

First I think small gyms and large gyms should play by different age floors. Let anyone who wants to compete in small gym have no age floors. And to qualify out of small gym I think it should be two solid years over the small gym limit to move up and out (this gives time to adjust for sudden success). Every division in small gym should be 'open' but no small gym should be allowed to compete at Worlds (prevents people from abusing this). This would allow a small gym to make their teams and compete on a level-ish playing field.

Next when you compete at a competition there should be NO separation between small gym and large gym. They compete in the same divisions and when awards are called out They should announce the overall champion (whoever it is), the small gym champion (unless it is the same as the overall), and then everyone else is listed by score as 2nd - last. On the scoresheet just * when someone is a small gym and assign them small gym placements. (like 10th overall but 2nd small gym). Now you will always have more teams to compete in divisions, small gyms have a slight advantage, but no one feels like they are getting a trophy just to get a trophy.

Last large gyms should have floors to correctly correlate people with the right age group. Yes a small gym and area it is better to have an 8 year old on that senior 3 so they can compete than not compete at all, but at the gyms where they do have the numbers you should correctly place kids by age as much as possible. It means Worlds teams are less likely to fly itty bitties because of age (yes there are those who will be itty bitty because of who they are, my wife is one of them and that is fine). It means kids are more likely to stay with their small program longer if they cannot do Worlds until an older age (see helping the small gym). It means the junior divisions will stop suffering (they have gotten smaller and started flying younger flyers because they lost all their flyers to older teams).

It means a better long term plan for everyone. Good rules and divisions are not about making just next year better, but about making things grow correctly in the right direction.

Click to expand...

who in your example never had a chance to win?

also the argument that it helps small gyms to move the worlds age up because the kids would then stay another year doesn't actually pan out. Decreasing the range of available athletes with which you can make a worlds team will keep that gym from ever making a worlds team and as their upper level kids catch on to that, they will all leave.

Think of it as each year of Age has 1 to 4 level 5 athletes in a program(1 to 4 12year olds, 1 to 4 13 year olds etc.) by taking out a year of athletes from your available kids that would remove potentially 4 kids and drop you to something like 12 available athletes. Not that worlds is the end all be all of all-star, but the thought that decreasing the range of athletes with which to make a team will in any way be beneficial to a smaller gym is just false

King said:

Ok, so you asked and I am about to give you my soapbox.

I believe in cheerleading, as is in life, most people just want a fair shot. They want to feel like they got a fair chance in whatever contest they are attempting. Yes they will not enjoy and probably complain about losing (if they do as would I) but it takes the truly enlightened to realize if someone is upset they lost or upset they never had a chance to begin with. Competing in something where you never have the opportunity to accomplish the realistic goals that are in front of you is very disheartening and people get very passionate. On the opposite are those who get defensive from the passionate people calling that their contest was never fair to begin with (they never had a fair shot). They believe the people are just complaining because they lost and lots of times they are missing that those with a disgruntled voice have a point.

So, with that being said it takes an outsider with less emotion in the game to see the overall big picture.

First I think small gyms and large gyms should play by different age floors. Let anyone who wants to compete in small gym have no age floors. And to qualify out of small gym I think it should be two solid years over the small gym limit to move up and out (this gives time to adjust for sudden success). Every division in small gym should be 'open' but no small gym should be allowed to compete at Worlds (prevents people from abusing this). This would allow a small gym to make their teams and compete on a level-ish playing field.

Next when you compete at a competition there should be NO separation between small gym and large gym. They compete in the same divisions and when awards are called out They should announce the overall champion (whoever it is), the small gym champion (unless it is the same as the overall), and then everyone else is listed by score as 2nd - last. On the scoresheet just * when someone is a small gym and assign them small gym placements. (like 10th overall but 2nd small gym). Now you will always have more teams to compete in divisions, small gyms have a slight advantage, but no one feels like they are getting a trophy just to get a trophy.

Last large gyms should have floors to correctly correlate people with the right age group. Yes a small gym and area it is better to have an 8 year old on that senior 3 so they can compete than not compete at all, but at the gyms where they do have the numbers you should correctly place kids by age as much as possible. It means Worlds teams are less likely to fly itty bitties because of age (yes there are those who will be itty bitty because of who they are, my wife is one of them and that is fine). It means kids are more likely to stay with their small program longer if they cannot do Worlds until an older age (see helping the small gym). It means the junior divisions will stop suffering (they have gotten smaller and started flying younger flyers because they lost all their flyers to older teams).

It means a better long term plan for everyone. Good rules and divisions are not about making just next year better, but about making things grow correctly in the right direction.

Click to expand...

If you are competing in a division where you never have a shot you either need to change divisions or find better coaching.

Dj_Drew said:

If you are competing in a division where you never have a shot you either need to change divisions or find better coaching.

Click to expand...

OK, by your standard 78 of the teams in small senior at Worlds shouldnt have been there.

King said:

OK, by your standard 78 of the teams in small senior at Worlds shouldnt have been there.

Click to expand...

Well when you compete in such an elite competition it's bound to happen, just like any sport. How many countries send teams to the Olympics without any chances of winning?

I'm also sure that the majority of those 78 teams weren't expecting to win. Most of those teams are just hoping to make it to the next day.

Dj_Drew said:

Well when you compete in such an elite competition it's bound to happen, just like any sport. How many countries send teams to the Olympics without any chances of winning?

Click to expand...

But now you are what going against what you posted earlier. I agree with popular divisions there will be a lot of teams who don't have shots at winning. But should only 3 teams compete in small senior?

CGAcheer said:

who in your example never had a chance to win?

also the argument that it helps small gyms to move the worlds age up because the kids would then stay another year doesn't actually pan out. Decreasing the range of available athletes with which you can make a worlds team will keep that gym from ever making a worlds team and as their upper level kids catch on to that, they will all leave.

Think of it as each year of Age has 1 to 4 level 5 athletes in a program(1 to 4 12year olds, 1 to 4 13 year olds etc.) by taking out a year of athletes from your available kids that would remove potentially 4 kids and drop you to something like 12 available athletes. Not that worlds is the end all be all of all-star, but the thought that decreasing the range of athletes with which to make a team will in any way be beneficial to a smaller gym is just false

Click to expand...

Do Worlds teams (with Worlds athletes) at small gyms honestly represent a legitimate business avenue?