All-Star 2012 Worlds

[SharkDad]

I always remember in an argument over cheerleading it is the same as an argument with a republican when I talk politics, we all want is best for everyone... we just have different ideas of how to get there.

Do I take this as an admittance that your are wrong in politics AND cheer.

 

[Mclovin]

Ok, just to make sure my intent is clear on this subject...

I do not want to see large teams eliminated because I want to hurt the Big 3 in large senior. I LOVE to watch them, all of them, and I love the unending battle between those gyms every year. My "rejoicing" comes due to the belief I have that most gyms in our industry struggle to field a true team of 36 AT ANY LEVEL. I do not believe our industry standards should be based around several top named teams/gyms and THEIR ability to field large teams. I believe our standards should be set so that gyms of all sizes can compete legitimately against each other. I want to see large teams AT ALL LEVELS capped at 30. Creating a medium division is the "small victory" or stepping stone the USASF is using to get us there, IMO.

@ShutItDown said: "such as T&S and other large limited teams could add girls and be large all girl. now i feel like this medium division is taking away from something good that they have done to make this even." -- T&S NEVER starts their season with a team larger than 27-28 kids on it, ever. We are a medium sized gym with 150-180 athletes. This season we had the following (this is our main and biggest location):

Mini 2 - 12 kids
Youth 2 - started with 21, ended with like 28ish.
Youth 4 - 20 kids
Junior 3 - started with 20, dropped to like 16ish, then combined them with senior 2 to make a large junior 3 with 26 or so kids, then RIGHT before NCA we added more to have like 34-35.
Junior 5 - 20 kids
Senior 2 - 10ish kids, ended up combining them with junior 3 and putting the 1 senior aged kid on senior 4.
Senior 4 - 20 kids
Senior Coed 5 - started with 26-27 kids, filled the team later in the season when going for a bid.

As you can see, we only had 3 large teams and all of them would have been considered "medium" had there been a division for 21-30. Our gym struggles to fill a team of 36. And every other gym I have been affiliated with or know anything about has this exact same problem. So THAT'S why I am a fan of capping large at 30 (and for now, having a medium division so that the industry will hopefully lean in that direction next year).

So yes, I am celebrating this new division and praying it is so incredibly popular that large dies off, that 30 will be the standard across the board for ALL levels. My eyes don't just see level 5. I see all levels, all ages, across the board. Rules should not be made or eliminated based solely on one division or one level. But I believe as we have proven with numbers some months back, that 90-95% of teams across the country have less than 30 starting out.

@StarshipTrooper -- I personally hope CEA and F5 and SS all field a medium sized team and keep that division deep. I don't want to see any team win just because the division has no "big names" in it. But if that has to happen for a year or two to prove a point, then let it be so...

 

[CheerFanatic]

I had a conversation with a very respected gym owner who has been in the cheer world longer than alot of you have been alive. I asked him what his perspective on the whole idea of changing the numbers of kids in the divisions. He made such a good point and I thought I would share it.

He says (and I am using numbers just for easy math) If I have a team of 20 - and they pay 100 per month for 10 months - then from that team my gym is netting 20000. I have to pay 2 coaches for that team. If I have a team of 36 and they pay 100 per month then I am netting 36000 and I have to pay 2 coaches. In other words having large teams is more profitable than having small teams. So, if medium is the new large - then the gym loses money - assuming the kids will go other places to be on a worlds team. Profit is not a bad thing - and a profitable gym is a lot happier place to be!

 

[King]

Who's season only lasts 10 months?

 

[CheerFanatic]

just using easy math - I am old and it is still early

 

[Mclovin]

I had a conversation with a very respected gym owner who has been in the cheer world longer than alot of you have been alive. I asked him what his perspective on the whole idea of changing the numbers of kids in the divisions. He made such a good point and I thought I would share it.

He says (and I am using numbers just for easy math) If I have a team of 20 - and they pay 100 per month for 10 months - then from that team my gym is netting 20000. I have to pay 2 coaches for that team. If I have a team of 36 and they pay 100 per month then I am netting 36000 and I have to pay 2 coaches. In other words having large teams is more profitable than having small teams. So, if medium is the new large - then the gym loses money - assuming the kids will go other places to be on a worlds team. Profit is not a bad thing - and a profitable gym is a lot happier place to be!

This assessment is assuming a gym can field a team of 36. Again, 90-95% of gyms can't and don't. Most large teams are 30 and under.

 

[King]

I had a conversation with a very respected gym owner who has been in the cheer world longer than alot of you have been alive. I asked him what his perspective on the whole idea of changing the numbers of kids in the divisions. He made such a good point and I thought I would share it.

He says (and I am using numbers just for easy math) If I have a team of 20 - and they pay 100 per month for 10 months - then from that team my gym is netting 20000. I have to pay 2 coaches for that team. If I have a team of 36 and they pay 100 per month then I am netting 36000 and I have to pay 2 coaches. In other words having large teams is more profitable than having small teams. So, if medium is the new large - then the gym loses money - assuming the kids will go other places to be on a worlds team. Profit is not a bad thing - and a profitable gym is a lot happier place to be!

And, by that argument teams should be unlimited in the size they can be. The issue is that there are FEW large teams that get over 30, so lots of them end up small. Remember, if 36 was working would be having this discussion? No. Therefor one example that works well out of many who are not doesnt seem like a good example to me.

 

[King]

@CheerFanatic or to put a different way, if the size of small was limiting the growth of cheerleading because the teams weren't large enough to contain all the awesomeness, id be on here arguing to increase the size of small. This all comes back to the fact that if the size of large, 36, was working for more than 2.5 gyms then this would not be a discussion.

 

[fabulousity]

I had a conversation with a very respected gym owner who has been in the cheer world longer than alot of you have been alive. I asked him what his perspective on the whole idea of changing the numbers of kids in the divisions. He made such a good point and I thought I would share it.

He says (and I am using numbers just for easy math) If I have a team of 20 - and they pay 100 per month for 10 months - then from that team my gym is netting 20000. I have to pay 2 coaches for that team. If I have a team of 36 and they pay 100 per month then I am netting 36000 and I have to pay 2 coaches. In other words having large teams is more profitable than having small teams. So, if medium is the new large - then the gym loses money - assuming the kids will go other places to be on a worlds team. Profit is not a bad thing - and a profitable gym is a lot happier place to be!

this assumes that there are only 2 coaches on a large team, which may be possible for a level 5 team but generally wouldn't be the case for the lower level. you'd probably also need to pay additional tumbling instructors for the team as well. i think it's a wash really, if your gym has 400 athletes you can have 20 small teams or 11 large teams OR you can maximize teams with a mixture of both.

 

[StarshipTrooper]

I had a conversation with a very respected gym owner who has been in the cheer world longer than alot of you have been alive. I asked him what his perspective on the whole idea of changing the numbers of kids in the divisions. He made such a good point and I thought I would share it.

He says (and I am using numbers just for easy math) If I have a team of 20 - and they pay 100 per month for 10 months - then from that team my gym is netting 20000. I have to pay 2 coaches for that team. If I have a team of 36 and they pay 100 per month then I am netting 36000 and I have to pay 2 coaches. In other words having large teams is more profitable than having small teams. So, if medium is the new large - then the gym loses money - assuming the kids will go other places to be on a worlds team. Profit is not a bad thing - and a profitable gym is a lot happier place to be!

And best of all, if you do small, medium and large, you get 8600 a month at 100 per month and have the same staff coach all three and build a big house. I agree with your friend, and I do suspect they know more than I do about everything, except primary care delivery, but I do think everybody understands the numbers. Now, when you get to that accrual accounting, watch the pocketbook. Cash accounting is so much more fun.

 

[StarshipTrooper]

And best of all, if you do small, medium and large, you get 8600 a month at 100 per month and have the same staff coach all three and build a big house. No mention of competition fees here at all, please. I agree with your friend, and I do suspect he knows more than I do about everything, except primary care delivery, but I do think everybody understands the numbers in this discussion. Now, when you get to that accrual accounting, watch the pocketbook. Cash accounting is so much more fun.

 

[StarshipTrooper]

I was so excited.

 

[StarshipTrooper]

I was so excited. Accounting fires me up

 

[King]

As do multiple posts.

 

[cheerinfo]

I had a conversation with a very respected gym owner who has been in the cheer world longer than alot of you have been alive. I asked him what his perspective on the whole idea of changing the numbers of kids in the divisions. He made such a good point and I thought I would share it.

He says (and I am using numbers just for easy math) If I have a team of 20 - and they pay 100 per month for 10 months - then from that team my gym is netting 20000. I have to pay 2 coaches for that team. If I have a team of 36 and they pay 100 per month then I am netting 36000 and I have to pay 2 coaches. In other words having large teams is more profitable than having small teams. So, if medium is the new large - then the gym loses money - assuming the kids will go other places to be on a worlds team. Profit is not a bad thing - and a profitable gym is a lot happier place to be!

I am not sure why you are comparing 20 to 36 when the comparison is actually 30 to 36...but in any event...

Who says that you would LOSE those 6 kids if you went from 36 to 30? Almost all senior teams lose at least a few kids each year, so let's say you have a large team of 36 and you graduate off/lose 7. Well, you were going to lose that revenue anyway. So you add one more kid at tryouts and you are at 30. All the other kids at tryouts are placed on teams accordingly and your gym continues to move forward with the same number of kids. Now, just for argument's sake, let's say you have a team of 36 and you lose none. Well, at tryouts, a LOT of gyms put more kids on the team at first then what they will end up with. You make cuts, put them on another team and you still have all those kids...still paying, just on a different team. Or....before tryouts, you let the gym's parents and athletes know that large team sizes have changed, so there will be new teams formed, etc. to accommodate the new amounts, but there will still be a team for every kid. Therefore, you are still holding onto your kids, still making money. The argument that going smaller in the large division means that for every team that had 36 kids, you lose 6 kids is not a valid one. There will just be new teams formed and different options for where to put your kids. And large IS going to 32 in all levels except level 5 next season, so every gym is going to have to have a new plan ANYWAY. One level (level 5)cutting down from 36 to 30 is not going to put gyms out of business even IF you lost 6 kids. Which is not what the case would be. Just sayin....