Hey Mclovin I think that was a mistake... I meant to rate this like and/or a shimmy... Thanks for pointing this out so I can go back and change it... Unfortunately, I am blind as 2 bats and sometimes without my old lady glasses cannot see exactly what I am doing
... My apology, I liked what you said!:cheering:
Hey Mclovin I think that was a mistake... I meant to rate this like and/or a shimmy... Thanks for pointing this out so I can go back and change it... Unfortunately, I am blind as 2 bats and sometimes without my old lady glasses cannot see exactly what I am doing
Does anybody find the Summit bid process to be a little bit flaky? I'm not talking so much about when a team wins or gets high point or posts a really high score and gets the bid. I'm talking about some of these producers that don't list a bid declaration and/or never post final scores. So nobody ever has any idea how the bids truly got selected. At one recent comp in Texas (not NCA ) there were something like 21 bids given out. Strangely, they ended up getting split almost perfectly between Small, Medium and Large gyms. Call me crazy but typically these groups are split for a reason. The producer does not publish any final scores so there is no way to know how or why some of those bids were awarded, just speculation. Even this past weekend at NCA for non Worlds level 5 there were supposed to be 2 pd and 7 at large. Only 6 of the at large got awarded. Clearly some were passed on since some of the winning teams already had paid or at large bids but it does not appear that they passed down based on percentage of perfection scores across the level. It appears to be more motivated by division than score. So, lets say you were in a division with places 1-3 being separated by tenths of a point and scoring at the high end of the scoresheet, one or both of those 2 and 3 placed teams could get passed over despite outscoring most of the other bid winners. It seems to me if you have available bids, setup that rematchIf coaches make competition selections with an eye towards trying to get summit bids and then there is no consistency or transparency in how they are awarded, then won't the competition end up being some small percentage of really good teams and then a hodgepodge of less than stellar teams that were awarded simply to fill out the divisions? I hope not, but over time that just might be what happens. If it does there will never be the prestige to the event that they are wanting to develop and I think that would be tragic. Summit is an awesome experience and should be the pinnacle of competition for the athletes, but going and spending the money to go, only to find out you were not even in the ballpark to compete with the top teams is quite the let down. Disney does take a little of the sting away.
Although we know we probably won't go on at large we definitely didn't mark it just to get a summit banner. In fact it was just a packet that we got. We don't need a qualifier banner when we have a real one from the last one that we actually went to.
I know ECE large 4.2 has a paid, because I was at the award ceremony it was awarded in.
It was Athletic Championships Providence.
Paid bid or not, it is still expensive when you're having to travel from the West Coast. Especially if you've attended NCA and/or UCA one month prior. Not to mention the other four or five weekends away at competitions. Due to the restrictions imposed on teams by virtue of distance I don't even consider the Summit to be an accurate measure of the best teams around (and I won't even begin a rant about the rules inviting stacking). I think they should level the playing field by removing the financial component so that all teams with Paid Bids have equal opportunity to attend. Although unreasonable to imagine all travel costs be paid like Worlds, they could at least attempt to offset travel costs for teams far away to encourage participation. I for one know that even with a Paid Bid California All Stars doesn't always attend the Summit.
