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

gofriars610 said:

I know in hockey there is the option for an exceptional player to play in a higher age group. My brother, a 94 in hockey years, has had 95s and the occasional 96 on his teams. If they have the skill, they get to use it.


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

Click to expand...

I am not saying it doesn't happen but you are talking only about an age or 2 difference and maybe 1 or 2 kids. Until you hit U16 or U18. Even then the age range is maybe 4 years all high schoolers.

newcheerdad said:

So what's the real reason why there are so many "baby flyers"? I mean, why would a gym put a little kid out there to throw their janky standing tuck and pull a dorito scorpion in the first place? And after four years of observing this sport and attending major competitions, the answer is obvious...because these gyms feel like it's the only way they can compete.

Now this isn't an indictment of younger kids on older teams. I stand by my original statement - while I prefer teams be age appropriate, you need to have a model where talent is allowed to "play up". That beautiful flyer or elite tumbler should have the ability to compete on a higher level team - even if that team is comprised of much older kids - if their skills warrant and they have the maturity to compete at that level. But the truth is that this isn't happening at many gyms, and what's happening instead is that everyone's putting the babies in the air even if they're not ready to be, because they think if they don't they've got no chance.

The reality is that they don't have much of a chance even if they do put the babies in the air. And that is the elephant in the room, isn't it?

If you look objectively at the major competitions - Worlds, NCA, Jamfest, etc. - you see a pretty consistent trend where the same gym are at or near the top. I haven't run the numbers, but I would bet cash money that there are probably, what, 75-100 gyms max that pretty much dominate the top level of cheer. Not necessarily winning Worlds, but consistently have teams that win competitive divisions at major events.

The gap between those teams and everyone else is striking. I look at my daughter's now former gym - a fairly large program with over 300 kids some years - that goes to these major comps and gets smoked more often than not. The issue isn't size of gym. It's the fact that some gyms, whether it be talent base, coaching, facilities, or some combination thereof - are simply so far ahead of everyone else.

This isn't limited to cheer. Look at college football, for example. Even within the football bowl subdivision (FBS) - the highest level of the sport - there are major differences between the haves and have nots. So much so, in fact, that there is discussion about creating yet another NCAA college football division on top of the four that already exist.

So what's the answer here? I'm not sure it's creating rules that attempt to bring everyone else back to the pack. Nor is it to create weird, arbitrary age limits that do nothing but stifle progression of elite athletes.

Perhaps it's time that cheer take a lesson from the NCAA - or heck, from many other sports - and create divisions. Maybe it's time to say that the top-100 gyms compete in their own division, and are the only ones that are allowed to have Worlds teams. Everyone else competes in the other division. So rather than Small Gym Junior 3, it's Division 1 Junior 3 and Division 2 Junior 3.

How do you pick those teams in Division 1? Look at the last three years of results for the gyms in Worlds and Worlds bid giving competitions, and pick the 100 teams with the best results. Every couple of years you can evaluate the list and determine if a.) there are teams in Division 1 that shouldn't be there anymore based on performance and b.) there are teams competing in Division 2 that are dominant and probably need to compete in Division 1. I'm not going to get into the mechanics of how that would work, but there are numerous examples in other sports about how that could.

Is that perfect solution? No. But I think so many rule changes over the years, whether it's been tumbling restrictions or age grid changes, are attempts to solve the real issue in piecemeal. The issue is that there's a discrepancy between the elite levels in all-star cheer and everyone else, and until that's addressed things will only get worse, not better.

Click to expand...

newcheerdad said:

So what's the real reason why there are so many "baby flyers"? I mean, why would a gym put a little kid out there to throw their janky standing tuck and pull a dorito scorpion in the first place? And after four years of observing this sport and attending major competitions, the answer is obvious...because these gyms feel like it's the only way they can compete.

Now this isn't an indictment of younger kids on older teams. I stand by my original statement - while I prefer teams be age appropriate, you need to have a model where talent is allowed to "play up". That beautiful flyer or elite tumbler should have the ability to compete on a higher level team - even if that team is comprised of much older kids - if their skills warrant and they have the maturity to compete at that level. But the truth is that this isn't happening at many gyms, and what's happening instead is that everyone's putting the babies in the air even if they're not ready to be, because they think if they don't they've got no chance.

The reality is that they don't have much of a chance even if they do put the babies in the air. And that is the elephant in the room, isn't it?

If you look objectively at the major competitions - Worlds, NCA, Jamfest, etc. - you see a pretty consistent trend where the same gym are at or near the top. I haven't run the numbers, but I would bet cash money that there are probably, what, 75-100 gyms max that pretty much dominate the top level of cheer. Not necessarily winning Worlds, but consistently have teams that win competitive divisions at major events.

The gap between those teams and everyone else is striking. I look at my daughter's now former gym - a fairly large program with over 300 kids some years - that goes to these major comps and gets smoked more often than not. The issue isn't size of gym. It's the fact that some gyms, whether it be talent base, coaching, facilities, or some combination thereof - are simply so far ahead of everyone else.

This isn't limited to cheer. Look at college football, for example. Even within the football bowl subdivision (FBS) - the highest level of the sport - there are major differences between the haves and have nots. So much so, in fact, that there is discussion about creating yet another NCAA college football division on top of the four that already exist.

So what's the answer here? I'm not sure it's creating rules that attempt to bring everyone else back to the pack. Nor is it to create weird, arbitrary age limits that do nothing but stifle progression of elite athletes.

Perhaps it's time that cheer take a lesson from the NCAA - or heck, from many other sports - and create divisions. Maybe it's time to say that the top-100 gyms compete in their own division, and are the only ones that are allowed to have Worlds teams. Everyone else competes in the other division. So rather than Small Gym Junior 3, it's Division 1 Junior 3 and Division 2 Junior 3.

How do you pick those teams in Division 1? Look at the last three years of results for the gyms in Worlds and Worlds bid giving competitions, and pick the 100 teams with the best results. Every couple of years you can evaluate the list and determine if a.) there are teams in Division 1 that shouldn't be there anymore based on performance and b.) there are teams competing in Division 2 that are dominant and probably need to compete in Division 1. I'm not going to get into the mechanics of how that would work, but there are numerous examples in other sports about how that could.

Is that perfect solution? No. But I think so many rule changes over the years, whether it's been tumbling restrictions or age grid changes, are attempts to solve the real issue in piecemeal. The issue is that there's a discrepancy between the elite levels in all-star cheer and everyone else, and until that's addressed things will only get worse, not better.

Click to expand...

King mentioned something along these lines somewhere else. The issue I see with this is that as soon as a gym gets that ONE kid they don't want to lose there will be another proposal.

yojaehs said:

King mentioned something along these lines somewhere else. The issue I see with this is that as soon as a gym gets that ONE kid they don't want to lose there will be another proposal.

Click to expand...

We never leave anything alone long enough to see if there is any improvement.

There are 2 year cycles in place, but the next line is always to the effect of but we can change it whenever we want

CGAcheer said:

We never leave anything alone long enough to see if there is any improvement.

There are 2 year cycles in place, but the next line is always to the effect of but we can change it whenever we want

Click to expand...

I agree! I proposed a SET 2 year cycle!


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

gofriars610 said:

I know in hockey there is the option for an exceptional player to play in a higher age group. My brother, a 94 in hockey years, has had 95s and the occasional 96 on his teams. If they have the skill, they get to use it.


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

Click to expand...

The point is, in hockey you have the occasional kid who can play up and really belong on the team. It seems in cheer that the PARENTS think that once their CP has a full or jumps to tuck, they want them on a senior 5 team.

MyDaughterCheers said:

The point is, in hockey you have the occasional kid who can play up and really belong on the team. It seems in cheer that the PARENTS think that once their CP has a full or jumps to tuck, they want them on a senior 5 team.

Click to expand...

That might be true for the most part, but the coaches place kids, not parents.


I don't really get this whole argument, other than people not liking junior kids on senior teams... I truly do not understand what problem it actually causes. It's never been expressed that I've seen in this entire thread.

Do people opposed to a 12 year old on a sr 5 team think that a 5'6" 130 lb 12 year old base with a double and toe full does not belong on a sr team because of her age? Or only if she's an 80 lb flying 12 year old with a double and a toe full?

I'm just a Cheer Mom but I try and stay as informed as I possibly can. I know this proposal could negatively impact my CP and I could see how it could negatively impact our gym as well as other gyms the size of our home gym. There are no power gyms in our area. There are several small gyms and a couple of large gyms an hour to three hours drive from us, and then there is our gym which has about 100 athletes. We LOVE our gym and it is IMHO hands down the best gym in our area. We have a responsible caring owner who is fair minded and a decent human being and wonderful talented caring coaches. Our Cheer Families are dedicated and lovely people and all in all its just a positive place to be. I don't know how they would be able to put teams together under these proposed guidelines. I would hate to have to do that job and I can see how many of our wonderful families might just leave the sport altogether since there just simply aren't any gyms in our immediate area larger than ours. No parent wants to spend the amount of money we do or watch their child work hard everyday to be a level four tumbler at 10 or 11 yrs of age only to have to watch them compete on a Y1 team because that is the child's age bracket and there are only two other kids that age with that level of skill. My own kid is a perfect example. The last two years placements were skill based at our gym so season before last my CP was on both a Y2 (her age bracket) and a J2. She based and did some limited flying on the Y2 and flew on the J2. Last season she was on a Sr2 and a SC3 where she flew on both teams. She progressed SO much on her maturity levels as well as her flying skills on the SC3. Currently she is still in l3 tumbling as at our gym a standing back tuck is required to pass to l4 and she can't quite stick that landing yet although she has her whip and her layout which are l4 skills so a L3 team would be an appropriate placement for her. Trouble is, for this upcoming season our gym decided that its mandatory to compete in your age bracket team and if your skills are above that you may have the opportunity to double on a higher level team. Since my kids B-day falls such that she is still youth age she will be competing on the Y2 team. I understand why our coaches would want her on that team. I would want to utilize her for youth if I were the coach. I also understand that they could not make an exception in the rule for my child based on past performance or every youth SM would be complaining how "not fair" it is that their youth aged child had to compete youth. So I get it. And my kid has an amazing positive attitude about it and is happy to compete where her coaches need her to. Her only negative comments have been how frustrated she is with the bickering these youth kids are engaging in during practice as she had gotten used to the maturity and work ethic of the kids on the senior teams. I'm a team player and I'm very loyal to our gym and like I said, if I were the coach I would want to use her as one of the anchors for the youth team too. My husband however feels she is being held back and that he is wasting his hard earned money on a team that offers her zero opportunity to advance her skill level. Therefore because he is also loyal to our gym he sees her placement on the youth team as "taking one for the team". The good news is that she will also be flying on the SC3 again this season which means that she does still have the opportunity to continue to advance her skills and to do what she loves most in cheer which is to fly. We are content and looking forward to this seasons upcoming competitions. However, IF these proposed age guidelines were in effect today my kiddo would only be on the Y2 team and not have the chance to also compete on the SC3. That scenario would be disastrous for us. I could see how similar scenarios might be deal breakers for some athletes and their families. I could easily see how parents would be unwilling to have their child stagnate in an age level when their skills were much higher as well as how an athlete might even regress in their skills because there is nothing to challenge them if they were forced by their age and the size of their gym to compete under these proposed guidelines. This is just my perspective as a parent.
I do understand the desire to not have 6yr olds flying on a Jr team just because they are tiny and easy to lift. Maybe this works ok for a L2 team but as the parent of a flyer I know for a fact that there is a HUGE jump in the level of effort an skill required from the flyer going from L2 to L3 stunting. I'm pretty sure that although there are some 6yr olds that can manage the stunt work that they are the exception rather than the rule.9'nniji


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

Does anyone else see the potential abuse on the open Jr category? I can see teams stacking a team of jr aged kids and then put one 10 year old on the team so they can be on the open level competing against other gyms that have to fit kids into that category because there is no where else to put them.

3amigosmom said:

Does anyone else see the potential abuse on the open Jr category? I can see teams stacking a team of jr aged kids and then put one 10 year old on the team so they can be on the open level competing against other gyms that have to fit kids into that category because there is no where else to put them.

Click to expand...

A stacked junior team doesn't bother me as much as the same being done on a senior team. Currently those same ages apply.


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

As another cheer mom, I would hate to see the new age grid take effect. I totally agree that it would negatively impact smaller gyms. For instance.. our gym was new this past year and had a total of 24. TOTAL. If the new age grid had been in effect, we would have had to make a jr team that consisted of 5 girls. As it stood, we were able to compete at the jr level with a majority of our team being 9-11 year olds. The older girls were all new to the sport this last year, and I think it would have discouraged them from coming back.

Personally, if there were any changes, I would like to see them apply them to crossovers and the tiny age grid. I wish they had a micro division for the 3-4 year olds. I hate seeing tiny teams with true tinies going against a tiny team made of entirely 6 year olds. And for crossovers, I really wish they only allowed crossovers to cross one level higher or lower than their current skill. Again, hate seeing/hearing of level 6 crossovers competing at level 2.

REA Dad said:

I love this proposed age grid but to be fair I have to admit I like it because I hope that some day all star will be referred to as a sport instead of an industry. I feel this splits age groups on par with other sports so it is a step in the right direction.

Click to expand...

FORGET IT. IT is allllll about the money. Of that I am sure.

Is this a legit proposal for the 2013-2014 season? Where did the OP get this information? I can't believe at this late date the age grid for 2013-2014 is changing (or for 2014-2015 either).

Cheergrandma said:

Is this a legit proposal for the 2013-2014 season? Where did the OP get this information? I can't believe at this late date the age grid for 2013-2014 is changing (or for 2014-2015 either).

Click to expand...

This isn't the actual age grid. This was just a proposal for 14-15 at one of the meetings they had a few weeks ago. The age grid for the 13-14 season was set a while ago.