All-Star A Growing Issue... I.e. Crossovers On Worlds Teams (for Bid Obtaining Purposes)

[DJ]

First, let me open this post by saying this is merely for discussion. I'm bringing this to the Fierce Boards for open discussion, because this "problem" is one that I've discussed with several friends, and we're seeing both the negatives as well as the positives to the situation.

Let me also preface by saying that I didn't realize what type of huge impact this issue has/is causing.

Many teams that should / will be top contenders at the Cheerleading Worlds are effectively bid-less for one reason or another. Interestingly, some teams that rely greatly on their crossovers from other top contending teams are gaining bids. (primarily seeing this in the Medium Coed / Medium Senior division)

Scenario:
Team A has a set roster.
Team B has a roster filled with very talented athletes that are effectively making Team B strong enough to contend for these Paid and Partial Paid Bids.

Team A is without a Bid (while still remaining a strong and solid roster) while Team B has utilized Crossovers to obtain the bid - when in reality the roster is going to be strikingly different - inhibiting Team B's success at Worlds because the talented athletes are back with their primary teams.

So we have...
Team A, a potential Worlds Contender with a solid roster without a Paid Bid or in some cases unable to attend Worlds because of the lack of a Paid Bid.

Team B, attending Worlds on a Paid bid - but now without there crossover athletes that filled the roster with the talent used to gain the Bid and making them contenders.


I understand the use of crossovers in lower levels, and particularly for Small programs.

But does anyone else see a problem with teams using Crossovers to Obtain Bids that they will not be using to participate at the Cheerleading Worlds?

 

[notimeforthat]

great topic! Can't wait to see the responses from gyms this effects!

 

[SarahS]

I've always wondered why bid-giving competitions aren't required to follow the same crossover rules as worlds (for those bid-eligible divisions) - I'm sure there's a reason... but I'm not sure what it is.

 

[Mamarazzi]

I guess I look at this in a couple of ways - first, marketing. Some gyms apparently don't mind a lack of globes, as long as they can say "We had X number of teams that got bids to Worlds." This seems to be good enough business for them, and in that case, I suppose it's fine to have Worlds crossovers for bid purposes. Second, for the athletes on the team, some might not mind getting the "extra help," but it obviously puts them at a disadvantage, both mentally and athletically, at Worlds.

 

[njallday]

I completely agree that it is becoming a significant problem! Teams that have potential to place top 5 at worlds are not receiving bids because they did not win their division - which makes sense, however the teams they are losing to are not the teams that will be using that paid bid.

When you can potentially change out 10 members of the team that is 50% of a small team or 33.3% of a medium team. that makes a gigantic impact on the team. When all of the powerhouse tumblers leave to return to their true teams, their places will be filled with athletes with lesser tumbling abilities. When those powerhouse stunt groups leave, the same thing will happen. The team goes from one that just beat a possible top 5 worlds contender to one that may not make it to day 2 of worlds, especially in these cut-throat divisions.

Not to mention that this affects EPs. Not that they can do anything about it - they did the right thing and awarded the bid to the winner. But they now have a team representing their company that is not the team they originally selected to do so.

I would also love to hear from teams this has actually effected.

 

[Ashley]

I completely agree that it is becoming a significant problem! Teams that have potential to place top 5 at worlds are not receiving bids because they did not win their division - which makes sense, however the teams they are losing to are not the teams that will be using that paid bid.

Is this really happening? Do you proof that teams that have receive paid bids have anywhere near 10 substitutions? It seems to me that if a team is actually good enough to place to top 5 at worlds that they wouldn't be losing to teams that have a few alternates. Especially since you're saying that once they replace those crossovers then the remaining team has no shot of doing well.

Basically, is this issue really as serious as you're suggesting?

 

[redsmom]

I understand wanting to give as many of your athletes as possible a chance to go to worlds (even if it is just for the experience), but lets face it, it is not that difficult to get an At Large bid, so the opportunity is already there. I think using a large number of cross-overs to win the paid bid, over a team with no cross-overs is not really ethical or fair (even though it is totally legal). I don't know the rosters of other teams well enough to know if this is happening, so I am really not pointing any fingers. If it is happening, it is wrong in my opinion.

That said the I feel the number of substituions/alternates allowed for worlds is too high. 10 substitution is to big of a number, 50% of a small team, 33% of a medium team and 28% of a large team not having to be on the bid winning team. I would love to see this rule changed to a percentage closer to 10%-15% (2-3 for small, 3-4 for medium, 4-5 for large). This would still cover injury situations, but prevent a significantly different team from showing up at worlds.

 

[BlueCat]

I would suggest we simplify the alternate rule to simply say at least 75% of the athletes taking the floor at Worlds had to be on the floor with that team at the bid event. Every athlete who takes the floor (both at bid event and Worlds) must be eligible under USASF guidelines. If you add team members, the same rule applies. (You can go from 18-20, as long as you still meet the first requirement.)

Currently, you may replace up to 10 regardless of team size. This would change to:

Small - replace up to 5
International - replace up to 6
Medium - replace up to 7
Large - replace up to 8

I would do away with the practically-unenforceable rule of trying to track who else was on a team from that program at the same event. Alternates are simply "wildcards" and can be anyone who is age-eligible (and not eliminated by the gym-release rules.)

Verification could be to simply take a quality team picture right before every bid-seeking team takes the mat at qualifying events. You could compare that to the team at Worlds in the event of dispute.

Also, the event producer has the option of NOT paying for substituted-in athletes under a paid bid. (The gym would have to pay the way of someone who wasn't on the floor when a team wins a paid bid.)

 

[DJ]

Also, these EPs are giving these bids to THAT performance / team composition. To switch out the advanced athletes you used to obtain the bid is kind of crappy for the EPs too. (which are hoping to be represented well at Worlds)

 

[tumbleyoda]

I believe in a couple of cases the Team B is more of a training/developmental team for the future - to eventually be on Team A in future years. So the level of expectation is different, the pressure is different and sometimes as a result they actually have more fun because they know they are not under the cheer world microscope as Team A. If Team A makes a mistake, doesn't get a bid it is like the world is about to end, but if Team B hits solid it barely causes a ripple. But when both B and A get a bid it makes for a major realignment of the team dynamics, especially with the current substitution/alternate rule.

 

[redsmom]

I would suggest we simplify the alternate rule to simply say at least 75% of the athletes taking the floor at Worlds had to be on the floor with that team at the bid event. Every athlete who takes the floor (both at bid event and Worlds) must be eligible under USASF guidelines. If you add team members, the same rule applies. (You can go from 18-20, as long as you still meet the first requirement.)

Currently, you may replace up to 10 regardless of team size. This would change to:

Small - replace up to 5
International - replace up to 6
Medium - replace up to 7
Large - replace up to 8

I would do away with the practically-unenforceable rule of trying to track who else was on a team from that program at the same event. Alternates are simply "wildcards" and can be anyone who is age-eligible (and not eliminated by the gym-release rules.)

Verification could be to simply take a quality team picture right before every bid-seeking team takes the mat at qualifying events. You could compare that to the team at Worlds in the event of dispute.

Also, the event producer has the option of NOT paying for substituted-in athletes under a paid bid. (The gym would have to pay the way of someone who wasn't on the floor when a team wins a paid bid.)

In general I agree with you, but 25% seems high. I am not a coach or gym owner though. I guess I would ask what percentage would cover the majority of necessary replacements (e.g. injury or other athlete hardships that would prevent them from attending)?

I like the idea of giving the EP the option of not paying for subs. Is that a current policy or is that your suggestion?

 

[cheerisgood]

lol....sounds like someone was in DC this weekend!!

 

[BlueCat]

In general I agree with you, but 25% seems high. I am not a coach or gym owner though. I guess I would ask what percentage would cover the majority of necessary replacements (e.g. injury or other athlete hardships that would prevent them from attending)?

I like the idea of giving the EP the option of not paying for subs. Is that a current policy or is that your suggestion?

I don't think there is a current policy about that.

The issue isn't that 25% of your team gets hurt the week of Worlds. The issue is more for teams who get their bids in November and then are "locked in" with their rosters for several months until Worlds. People quit or can't pay, people get injured, etc. Teams change over that period of time - especially in International.

 

[tucknduck]

I believe in a couple of cases the Team B is more of a training/developmental team for the future - to eventually be on Team A in future years. So the level of expectation is different, the pressure is different and sometimes as a result they actually have more fun because they know they are not under the cheer world microscope as Team A. If Team A makes a mistake, doesn't get a bid it is like the world is about to end, but if Team B hits solid it barely causes a ripple. But when both B and A get a bid it makes for a major realignment of the team dynamics, especially with the current substitution/alternate rule.

Are we talking two world division level 5 teams in the same gym? If so, there shouldn't be a training or development team since Level 5 teams are the highest level at 18U and all level 5 teams have to meet the same standards to cheer at that level. Aren't levels 1-4 the development levels? So if team B is always placing well at tournaments while team A from the same gym is barely placing, then perhaps it's not necessarily a crossovver issue but rather a coaching issue. Maybe the coaches need to crossover from team B to team a and clean up whatever's amiss over at team A. If the roster changes every year but the coaches are the same and team B always has more success than team A, , doesn't that say just maybe the coaching on team B is stronger and are getting more out of their level 5 athletes than team A? Perhaps?

 

[redsmom]

I don't think there is a current policy about that.

The issue isn't that 25% of your team gets hurt the week of Worlds. The issue is more for teams who get their bids in November and then are "locked in" with their rosters for several months until Worlds. People quit or can't pay, people get injured, etc. Teams change over that period of time - especially in International.

That makes sense. I guess I am trying to understand based on history, what percentage would cover most of these "legitimate" roster changes. My experience from the 1 gym I have any real knowledge of (obviously a very limited data sample) is that the number is fairly small, which is why 25% still seems high, even though it is a huge improvement over 50%! I also understand how when dealing with young adults on the international teams the numbers would be greater, so my follow-up question would be do we need to handle the international teams differently with regard to subs?