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

[Ceacoach]

So after reading this I just have a couple questions..... Did you decline both of the at large bids, to give them to other programs at the competitions they were won at, since it was won by a just for fun team? Also, since it has given the worlds opportunity to three boys who in no way could afford all of the costs of a long season....if it is an at large bid it is still upwards of $700 how will that be paid for? Do the parents in your program get upset after paying all year and then their child being replace by these 3 boys who stepping in, in the middle of the season?? I just feel these are valid questions, spawning from your post. I have many friends that I respect in your program, but I thought I would ask since you put this out there?

We declined the bid received at AllStar Challenge due to significant roster changes just before Cheersport. The team was honored to place high enough in Atlanta to receive an at large bid again. That bid dissolved when they were awarded the paid bid in DC. My words were "what is a really fun team" translation = not as stressful and publicly scrutinized as SE and CoEd Elite. By no means are they "a just for fun" team as you state. Anyone who has ever coached a coed team of any kind knows the degree of financial investment that male membership costs a gym owner. At the end of my career I will look most fondly back on the boys who need this sport the most and know that that investment was well worth it. To answer your hypothetical "how would I pay the bill had they not received a bid?" Sometimes families sponsor boys that need extra funds, sometimes they do stunt clinics, most of the time I foot the bill. Your next question with double question marks is not valid. No athlete was replaced in fact quite the opposite, more athletes were granted an opportunity. I don't know how you could read my response and come to that particular conclusion. Finally, your assumption that these boys " stepped in in the middle of the season" is also false. They have been stunting and training for quite some time.

I do believe that the proposal for 75% roster change and team picture are needed as Blue Cat suggests. I would also like to add that the 10 substitutions rule and the stipulation that 7 have to compete at the event have the following effects for event producers:
1) It lessens the competitive disadvantage that early bid givers have vs. companies that offer bids later in the season
2) It guarantees that gyms who are attending events specifically for bid eligibility bring along more teams.

Keep in mind that all rules have unintended consequences. For instance, the more restrictive the number of substitutions becomes the more locked in athletes are to a roster. This means that those athletes can't be moved for any reason, injury being the most obvious reason for replacement, but what about bill collection, attendance, and skill regression? There are a number of coaches who believe that the bid should belong to the gym and that athletes should have to work to keep spots after the bid is received, with the "release" rules we have in place the old fear of gym hopping athletes is no longer present.

 

[Mo-Lissa]

Ceacoach Thank you for your response, I did miss interpreted your comment about the costs of a long season for the boys, as they joined mid-season. I have been with a program who through the years have also sponsored boys, and will look back glad I could help some of these young men, now are almost all grown.

 

[FamousMatty]

I believe that is what will happen with Epic? They have had their bid for quite some time now though. Just curious why those athletes havent been competing with them and still has 8 super seniors on it?

(As a side note, i don't believe that this is the team that everyone is referring to)

Though I have read through and know this isn't the team being discussed I just thought I would shed some insight here. Epic was originally small senior. Due to roster changes of other teams and so forth some talent was lost. I in no way am trying to discredit a team from my gym, but they were never truly a competitor for a paid bid. The team was not filled with Super Seniors to attempt to procure a paid bid but rather simply to allow them to in some ways hit a level 5 scoresheet at CheerTech. Many of the age eligible athletes from J5 are already on Supers and thus the number of actual level 5 athletes to fill the team are not very high. With the large division dwindling as is, an at large bid in large senior means paying for the entire bill, however getting the guaranteed ability to compete both days. The team has moved between Restricted 5 and Large Senior since receiving their bid. Upon further inspection the coaches and parents agreed, though the worlds experience is a great one, just going as a team who is not competitive within their division doesn't seem logical based on the amount of money it would cost. As far as I know the current consensus is that they will not be going to worlds.

In response to this thread as a whole; I will not comment my opinions on the gyms involved. I will only say that between the gyms mentioned here and in the Level 2/Sandbagging thread, I hope the realization of some of the unethical practices of bigger named gyms motivates the cheer world as a whole to move that these issues be resolved. The unethical practices of larger gyms will continue to be the death of smaller programs because the things they are doing are "legal." Backwoods Right Down the Street Allstars, who may have the best level 4 program in the country will eventually loose their athletes to the big program who utilizes an absurd amount of crossovers to procure ten paid bids to worlds then send 2 level 5' and 8 level 4 teams to worlds.

Many times throughout this thread it has been stated worlds is just one event at the end of the year. We can say that easily. My challenge would be to prove it then. As a big gym, if worlds truly is just an event at the end of the year then create one team, the best team you can possibly create within you program and send that team and that team only to worlds. If you have multiple gyms, pull your best talents from all locations but send only one team. Then tell me after tryouts the next season when that team is made a second time, how many of your other "level 5" athletes stay with your program. It is not just an event, the cheer world has made it THE event. How many times did we see, "it's ok Team A lost NCA, they'll get the real prize and win words." Worlds has become a size matters competition. Send one team who is competitive and 19 teams who aren't and you are still immortalized as the first team to send 20 teams to worlds.

Sorry rant over, this thread though informational and great, has just made me start to think of the many things wrong in the cheer world right now, and unfortunately most of them seem to root back to worlds and the process of getting there.

 

[munchkinmom]

Could we say that kids on a team that wins a bid to Worlds, and cannot compete at Worlds (on any of the gym's teams), up to x number of athletes, their spot may be replaced by an eligible sub/alt from that gym. If a kid on their gym's team A is on the floor when team A wins the bid, and on the floor when their gym's team B wins the bid, the gym gets to decide what team to compete them on, but loses that "slot" on the other team and competes a person down from the number they qualified with? And no, you don't get to go down a size division because you lost slots due to that rule (because with out doing it that way, that rule is asking to be abused). If the kid competes neither, they can obviously replace both slots as long as each team does not go over it's sub/alt limit.

 

[redsmom]

The way I see it the root of the problem is the substitution rule for worlds. I don't remember all of the history, but I know this rule has evolved over the last few years. I believe we are in fact seeing unanticipated consequences of the rule. I like BlueCat 's suggestion that the rule be easily enforceable, since complicated rules aren't effective. I absolutely believe being able to substitute 25% of your roster is too big of a number. I would love to hear real examples from gym owners/coaches, other then international teams, where this was necessary due to injury, financial reasons or athletes quitting. I am not as sympathetic to the "skills regression", I know it happens, but many of these level 5 kids have been at the same gym for years, and the coaches know which kids have these tendencies (IMO).

I would like to see a substitution rule of 4 substitutes across all of the club (non-international) divisions. The gyms can use any 4 athletes, the only stipulations being they meet age requirments and have a release if they have competed with another gym.

This would allow for an entire stunt group to be replaced. If a team has more then 4 athletes that can't compete, they take the floor with less athletes. The score sheets take the number of athletes on the floor into consideration, so the team is still competitive, although some rework of the routine is required (giving the gyms incentive to use those first 4 substitutes wisely).
I expect that significantly lowering the number of subs, would make coaches nervous, but if it is important that the team that earns the bid be the team that competes at worlds, that is how to make it happen. (Does anyone doubt that Panthers could win worlds with 28 athletes? Would F5, Stars or SE not still be just as competitive with 34 or 35?)

 

[tucknduck]

Though I have read through and know this isn't the team being discussed I just thought I would shed some insight here. Epic was originally small senior. Due to roster changes of other teams and so forth some talent was lost. I in no way am trying to discredit a team from my gym, but they were never truly a competitor for a paid bid. The team was not filled with Super Seniors to attempt to procure a paid bid but rather simply to allow them to in some ways hit a level 5 scoresheet at CheerTech. Many of the age eligible athletes from J5 are already on Supers and thus the number of actual level 5 athletes to fill the team are not very high. With the large division dwindling as is, an at large bid in large senior means paying for the entire bill, however getting the guaranteed ability to compete both days. The team has moved between Restricted 5 and Large Senior since receiving their bid. Upon further inspection the coaches and parents agreed, though the worlds experience is a great one, just going as a team who is not competitive within their division doesn't seem logical based on the amount of money it would cost. As far as I know the current consensus is that they will not be going to worlds.

In response to this thread as a whole; I will not comment my opinions on the gyms involved. I will only say that between the gyms mentioned here and in the Level 2/Sandbagging thread, I hope the realization of some of the unethical practices of bigger named gyms motivates the cheer world as a whole to move that these issues be resolved. The unethical practices of larger gyms will continue to be the death of smaller programs because the things they are doing are "legal." Backwoods Right Down the Street Allstars, who may have the best level 4 program in the country will eventually loose their athletes to the big program who utilizes an absurd amount of crossovers to procure ten paid bids to worlds then send 2 level 5' and 8 level 4 teams to worlds.

Many times throughout this thread it has been stated worlds is just one event at the end of the year. We can say that easily. My challenge would be to prove it then. As a big gym, if worlds truly is just an event at the end of the year then create one team, the best team you can possibly create within you program and send that team and that team only to worlds. If you have multiple gyms, pull your best talents from all locations but send only one team. Then tell me after tryouts the next season when that team is made a second time, how many of your other "level 5" athletes stay with your program. It is not just an event, the cheer world has made it THE event. How many times did we see, "it's ok Team A lost NCA, they'll get the real prize and win words." Worlds has become a size matters competition. Send one team who is competitive and 19 teams who aren't and you are still immortalized as the first team to send 20 teams to worlds.

Sorry rant over, this thread though informational and great, has just made me start to think of the many things wrong in the cheer world right now, and unfortunately most of them seem to root back to worlds and the process of getting there.

That would be the way to send a true worlds team to the event and it should include all small gyms as well. Biggest issue here though is $$$$$$$. By cutting out dozens and dozens of teams from worlds, it won't generate the loot and these cheer companies are in business to make money.

I really don't see a problem with the way bids are handed out. If the idea is to get teams to attend more tournaments that offer bids, that's fine. Gyms can choose to decide to chase bids or not. The problem is the crossovers moving to other teams as hired guns. Until the cher industry does away with crossovers and uses a call-up system from the lower levels, there will be no viable solution to fixing the problem.

Now if teams want to continue to use crossovers, thats fine but then they would be ineligible to earn bids or earn a championnship jacket and can compete as an exhibition team. Then the next team with the highest score who follows the call-up rule wins the national championship or obtain a bid. This goes for local tournaments as well.

 

[TheUltimateFan]

It slowed to a crawl, but hasn't stopped. Concerns were who would and wouldn't have access to the data.

Looking further down the line since it's already been hinted at in one of the threads, regarding the idea of USASF EPs only allowing USASF members to compete at events. There aren't enough USASF member gym/athletes to know if that requirement would push EPs into the USASF or out. For many EPs the percentage of gyms attending their events that are USASF members isn't so high enough that they are willing to cut off the ones that aren't if they choose not to join the USASF.

I worked with an EP last season and less than 10% of the athletes that attended their events during the season were part of USASF member gyms. If the USASF EPs could only allow USASF member gyms to compete, it would have been a smarter business decision for them to leave the USASF and continue working with the 90% than to try to get the 90% to join the USASF.

Or band together themselves and create their own ruling body that truly represents them - not Varsity and 10% of the total athletes in the sport.

I would love to know what % of the athletes that regularly attend JAM brands events are not USASF members.

 

[5-6-7-8]

Or band together themselves and create their own ruling body that truly represents them - not Varsity and 10% of the total athletes in the sport.

I would love to know what % of the athletes that regularly attend JAM brands events are not USASF members.

This number would be interesting! I don't even want to pretend that I understand the politics going on at the USASF, but I would love to know what the numbers are in terms of non-USASF events, and the like.

I think one benefit to EPs getting on board with USASF is the ability to give out Worlds bids. (Though that does leave room for someone else to come up with another "worlds" type event.) I wonder what percentage of the gyms are either going for a worlds bid of any sort vs. those who could care less about worlds. (And I would lump gyms who may not be ready for Worlds today but have it as a goal into the first group.)

I am trying to think of any true reason an EP wouldn't want to be registered as a USASF event. The only reasons I can think of are to not play "by the rules" in order to make money (or I guess in these scenarios, around the rules since no actual rule has been broken in these discussions.) I think this might be a completely different discussion, however.

 

[tumbleyoda]

Or band together themselves and create their own ruling body that truly represents them - not Varsity and 10% of the total athletes in the sport.

I would love to know what % of the athletes that regularly attend JAM brands events are not USASF members.

IMO if you eliminate the benefit of being able to attend Worlds from being a member of USASF, your drop in the numbers of USASF membership would even more dramatic. Not just athletes, but in registered gyms, coaches, etc.

 

[DJ]

Can someone clarify the # of Crossovers if any used on NJSE's Paid Bid winning team this weekend in Wildwood?
I'm hearing varying situations, and a range of #'s.
ShawnsDadof4 can you clarify the facts please.

 

[BlueCat]

I would also like to add that the 10 substitutions rule and the stipulation that 7 have to compete at the event have the following effects for event producers:
1) It lessens the competitive disadvantage that early bid givers have vs. companies that offer bids later in the season
2) It guarantees that gyms who are attending events specifically for bid eligibility bring along more teams.

I do understand your view. However, as we have seen, the status quo GREATLY benefits the largest gyms over the small or medium-sized ones. The mega-gyms already have enough advantages without needing this one. Most gyms don't have the luxury of being able to "borrow" a double-digit number of strong level 5 athletes from other L5s to create a team strong enough to earn a paid bid, then swap back in athletes who weren't on a bid-winning team to begin with.

The Worlds substitution rule was designed in part to help keep athletes from jumping ship mid-season. That issue has been addressed with the new gym release rule, making this old rule obsolete. Untying substitutions from the impossible-to-enforce "on the floor with a team from that program at that event" clause greatly simplifies the whole process. (and more directly addresses your reason #1).

This also lets gym owners more easily address the issues of skill regression, payment issues, and other reasons. 25% is probably still too generous, but it should cover the situations that nearly any team would find themselves under.

Regarding your second point, if event producers are concerned with programs only bringing 1 team to an event in search of a paid bid, they can simply make bringing multiple teams (or a certain % of your program) a part of their bid qualification requirements. EPs already have the freedom to address this if they choose. (Some already do this.) Note that this can also work AGAINST an event producer. We have considered taking teams to events before, but chose NOT to bring a team at all because of this type of requirement.

 

[imrichhowboutu]

Can someone clarify the # of Crossovers if any used on NJSE's Paid Bid winning team this weekend in Wildwood?
I'm hearing varying situations, and a range of #'s.
ShawnsDadof4 can you clarify the facts please.

I assume the child who got hurt was replaced with someone on Fab 5. When they were at a comp 2 months ago I think they only had like 3 crossovers from what I could see (and that included boys)

 

[DJ]

I assume the child who got hurt was replaced with someone on Fab 5. When they were at a comp 2 months ago I think they only had like 3 crossovers from what I could see (and that included boys)

Thanks for the information, from my understanding all 4 boys from X5 (bid winners this weekend) crossed over from FAB 5 (medium coed bid winners from December)

Anyone know who will be replacing the FAB 5 boys at Worlds?

 

[DJ]

What no takers? Interesting how a week and a different gym changes peoples attitudes.

 

[quitthedrama]

What no takers? Interesting how a week and a different gym changes peoples attitudes.

My attitude hasn't changed a bit on this subject with the exception of an increase in my level of disappointment and disgust, and frustration that it seems nothing will ever be done about it. There was a suggestion to send emails to USASF - I have sent emails to USASF with a specific question regarding crossovers (i.e. - how is it legal for a gym to compete in the large gym and small gym division at the same comp with the same athletes!?) and with a suggestion on limiting crossovers and both have gone unanswered. Some gyms seems to think competing with 25-50% of a team to get a bid with athletes that have already won a bid with another team is completely acceptable because "it's not against the rules" and many have posted in their defense because it isn't against the rules. Personally, I feel it goes against the intent of the rules and is unethical and more people agree than disagree. We've been told "don't hate the player, hate the game". Hate's a strong word, but I strongly dislike both the players and the game when it comes to crossovers being used to sandbag or stack a team. It's time for change - I hope USASF is up to the task!