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

[BlueCat]

BUT, I do have to say this: Don't hate the player, hate the game. I don't think it's relevant to bring in names to this because they're not doing anything illegal. Why shun a gym that's not doing anything wrong on paper? The gyms in question aren't "driving 5 miles over the speed limit". Driving 5 miles over the speed limit is illegal, using 10 crossovers is not. They aren't "living on the edge" nor do they have to worry about getting caught by "the police" because they're doing nothing wrong. People who say they're cheaters or should be ashamed are obviously bitter about a former loss to one of these types of teams. It's one thing to say it's against your morals, it's a completely different situation to label them as cheaters. They aren't cheating. They're just playing the system.

It isn't against the rules to stand next to the mat when a rival team is going and yell out the wrong counts either. Does that make it OK? There isn't a rule against it in the USASF Safety Guidelines.

(Clearly not the same as crossovers - just demonstrating that following the letter of the guidebook doesn't automatically give you a pass to do whatever you want and have people applaud you for it.)

I am reminded of a youtube video:



Some people may think this was genius and congratulate the coach on his creativity. No rule was broken. Many others (myself included) think it was tacky and would never want to resort to this to win a football game - rule or no rule. Fake handoffs & misdirection within a normal play are all a part of the game, but this is "outside the bounds" of good sportsmanship, IMO.

 

[TheUltimateFan]

IMO, there are two different "chicken and egg" scenarios that need to be solved before significant changes can be made.

Athlete membership.

EP's don't want to require athlete membership at their events until a majority of the athletes are already members. (They understandably don't want to turn away most of their customers.) Gym owners don't really see a point in going through the trouble of registering their athletes until it is required of them by the events they go to. So basically, EP's won't require it until more athletes are registered - more athletes won't register until it is required.

USASF Power

Fair or not, there is a general mistrust of the USASF because they haven't seemed to be efficient at getting changes made. This makes many hesitant to give them even more money, authority, and power. From the USASF perspective, they don't have the money or power needed to get things done efficiently without going through many hoops, committees, and political BS. So, basically USASF says it needs more money and power to get things done, but people don't want to give them money and power because (in their view) they haven't been able to get things done with what they have.

(Related is that USASF can't afford to move out of Varsity headquarters, but people don't trust and don't want to give money to a group that is headquartered in Varsity.)

The two options I posted earlier address these same two issues, in a manner. Since that time Cheer_Explosion_Coach and Ceacoach both posted about independent regional allstar organizations - in three key markets. So my question is, why not use the tools you already have - those regional groups? Why does it have to be USASF? This is just an idea, I don't have all the knowledge or experience needed to work out all of the details to support it but I am sure many of you do. I'm just going to throw this out to get the thinking process started:

You have three organizations in three key markets. One located on the East Coast, one on the West Coast and one in Dallas. Is there one up in the Midwest, in the JammyTown area? Do these have a large number of coaches and owners participating? What if each of these individual groups met and identified 1-3 midsize competitions in their respective geographical areas to target with your first attempt to drive the changes you want. Maybe look at December competitions. You don't have to go after the biggest players in the EP world right away...to be successful you only have to show the Big Boys that:

1. you are capable of organizing yourselves (programs, coaches and athletes) in pursuit of your goals
2. you are serious about this
3. You have the power in numbers that you need to hit them in their pocketbook

Set milestones;

• Date to develop an athlete registration proposal. Hijack the one USASF started - get their buy-in if you can. More than half the work is already done. If they don't want to support you, do it yourselves. This is not a huge project. I don't know why it is made out to be one.
• Date to complete development of a Universal Scoresheet. Didn't someone here say that a couple of people have already drafted a sample of that?
• Date to deliver the registration process and Universal Scoresheet to the selected EPs with your 'demands'.
• Deadline for the EP to respond as to whether they will accept your requirements.

If they don't accept, pull out of the competition and stick with the decision. Then do it again for the next group of competitions/EPs. Of course, this will only work if enough programs are willing to band together and commit to the plan.

Again, this is just an idea to get you thinking in different directions. It may be full of holes, but I hope it may generate an idea that is not.

And I agree that the perceived marriage between Varsity and USASF is not helping USASF at all. It would be nice to see the decision makers be made up of relative percentages of owners, coaches, athletes and parents. Although I personally would want to see it most heavily weighted with coaches.

I know the next thing I will hear is that many of the small gyms don't want to or can't afford to send their coaches to these meetings. This is 2012. Pick a virtual meeting technology. There are only about 10,000 options available...

 

[PghxCheer2]

It isn't against the rules to stand next to the mat when a rival team is going and yell out the wrong counts either. Does that make it OK? There isn't a rule against it in the USASF Safety Guidelines.

(Clearly not the same as crossovers - just demonstrating that following the letter of the guidebook doesn't automatically give you a pass to do whatever you want and have people applaud you for it.)

I am reminded of a youtube video:



Some people may think this was genius and congratulate the coach on his creativity. No rule was broken. Many others (myself included) think it was tacky and would never want to resort to this to win a football game - rule or no rule. Fake handoffs & misdirection within a normal play are all a part of the game, but this is "outside the bounds" of good sportsmanship, IMO.

The screaming is sort of different. Screaming different counts will never benefit the team on the floor. I understand that we're talking about the crossover rules being abused, but there are situations where crossovers do benefit teams on the floor/EPs/coaches/etc. I do understand what you're saying, though. And I guess I agree with it to a point, which is why the rule is even being discussed as problematic in the first place.

I think that youtube video is a completely different situation. In the football game they are using trickery and doing something behind the other team's back. While it wasn't against the rules, it also wasn't expected by the other team. Nor was it something the other team was given adequate time beforehand to prepare for.

The crossover issue isn't new. The teams that are infamous for doing it don't hide the fact that they do it. In fact, I would never go into a competition expecting them NOT to do it. It's an issue that's been discussed on the voting floor before, and there are obviously reasons that it was overturned at the 2011-2013 voting. At that point, when you know that's something you're going to have to deal with for the next 3 seasons, a gym owner going up against a team like CEA will need to adjust their team/schedule/etc. They did it last year, and the year before that, and the year before that, and so on.

I'm CERTAINLY not saying it shouldn't be discussed or changed. Like I said first, I want to see crossovers limited. I didn't understand why they overturned it at the 2011-13 voting. I do think crossovers should be limited. But I don't think that gives bitter coaches/parents/athletes the right to call said teams that use crossovers cheaters for the next 3 seasons. That's what msteal was talking about with the "asterick wins" in the other thread.

 

[BowsnBling]

The two options I posted earlier address these same two issues, in a manner. Since that time Cheer_Explosion_Coach and Ceacoach both posted about independent regional allstar organizations - in three key markets. So my question is, why not use the tools you already have - those regional groups? Why does it have to be USASF? This is just an idea, I don't have all the knowledge or experience needed to work out all of the details to support it but I am sure many of you do. I'm just going to throw this out to get the thinking process started:

You have three organizations in three key markets. One located on the East Coast, one on the West Coast and one in Dallas. Is there one up in the Midwest, in the JammyTown area? Do these have a large number of coaches and owners participating? What if each of these individual groups met and identified 1-3 midsize competitions in their respective geographical areas to target with your first attempt to drive the changes you want. Maybe look at December competitions. You don't have to go after the biggest players in the EP world right away...to be successful you only have to show the Big Boys that:

1. you are capable of organizing yourselves (programs, coaches and athletes) in pursuit of your goals
2. you are serious about this
3. You have the power in numbers that you need to hit them in their pocketbook

Set milestones;

• Date to develop an athlete registration proposal. Hijack the one USASF started - get their buy-in if you can. More than half the work is already done. If they don't want to support you, do it yourselves. This is not a huge project. I don't know why it is made out to be one.
• Date to complete development of a Universal Scoresheet. Didn't someone here say that a couple of people have already drafted a sample of that?
• Date to deliver the registration process and Universal Scoresheet to the selected EPs with your 'demands'.
• Deadline for the EP to respond as to whether they will accept your requirements.

If they don't accept, pull out of the competition and stick with the decision. Then do it again for the next group of competitions/EPs. Of course, this will only work if enough programs are willing to band together and commit to the plan.


Again, this is just an idea to get you thinking in different directions. It may be full of holes, but I hope it may generate an idea that is not.

And I agree that the perceived marriage between Varsity and USASF is not helping USASF at all. It would be nice to see the decision makers be made up of relative percentages of owners, coaches, athletes and parents. Although I personally would want to see it most heavily weighted with coaches.

I know the next thing I will hear is that many of the small gyms don't want to or can't afford to send their coaches to these meetings. This is 2012. Pick a virtual meeting technology. There are only about 10,000 options available...

I feel like the Nor Cal Alliance started with this in mind and although they are doing great things in the area, they had a hard time getting 45 gyms certified let alone whole areas of the country.

When all of this does happen ( because I believe it will at some point ) I think you will find that their will be 'the great divide' in programs and gyms, we will lose many gyms to these rules. Albiet it is the best for the industry from a gym perspective for some it would not be for others. All the things being asked for seem so logical, makes you wonder why the USASF can't hire some college interns to hunt everyone down ( I feel like plenty of cheer people would volunteer for the opportunity) and get the ball rolling. Maybe putting the usasf state directors in charge of this would be a good thing. Let's all be honest, the usasf makes money from the industry : the money should be spent on bettering the sports for the athletes, not the EPs and higher ups.

 

[BlueCat]

The screaming is sort of different. Screaming different counts will never benefit the team on the floor. I understand that we're talking about the crossover rules being abused, but there are situations where crossovers do benefit teams on the floor/EPs/coaches/etc. I do understand what you're saying, though. And I guess I agree with it to a point, which is why the rule is even being discussed as problematic in the first place.

I think that youtube video is a completely different situation. In the football game they are using trickery and doing something behind the other team's back. While it wasn't against the rules, it also wasn't expected by the other team. Nor was it something the other team was given adequate time beforehand to prepare for.

The crossover issue isn't new. The teams that are infamous for doing it don't hide the fact that they do it. In fact, I would never go into a competition expecting them NOT to do it. It's an issue that's been discussed on the voting floor before, and there are obviously reasons that it was overturned at the 2011-2013 voting. At that point, when you know that's something you're going to have to deal with for the next 3 seasons, a gym owner going up against a team like CEA will need to adjust their team/schedule/etc. They did it last year, and the year before that, and the year before that, and so on.

I'm CERTAINLY not saying it shouldn't be discussed or changed. Like I said first, I want to see crossovers limited. I didn't understand why they overturned it at the 2011-13 voting. I do think crossovers should be limited. But I don't think that gives bitter coaches/parents/athletes the right to call said teams that use crossovers cheaters for the next 3 seasons. That's what msteal was talking about with the "asterick wins" in the other thread.

I was simply arguing against people saying that "if it isn't specifically against a rule, then it should perfectly acceptable by everyone" idea. It is not black and white like that. Crossovers is not the same as either of the situations I presented.

Gyms that have been using many crossovers for years haven't hidden the fact that they are doing it. It would be silly for anyone to think they will change their mind unless there is a rule change. The same thing works the other way, too, though. People have been voicing their negative opinion on large number of crossovers for years as well. It would be just as silly for people to think that all of a sudden everyone will view it as being OK.

 

[Cheer_Explosion_Coach]

First of all let me state that I am the Louisiana state director for the USASF and I also coach / own a gym of about 65 athletes, who are all registered members of the USASF. I haven't been in the USASF position for long, but I accepted the voluntary position for one reason. To help push the sport in a more positive direction in regards to coaches education, safety, fair competition, and over all sportsmanship. I am a nobody in the grand scheme of things and haven't been in as long as most parents and coaches on this board, but I have as much passion and dedication to get it "right" as anyone out there.

I do believe that the USASF is headed in the right direction. However, it moves at a very conservative rate to say the least. Here are some of the problems I see that the USASF are having.

1. Relationship - It is very apparent that there is a lack of personal relationship between the state / regional directors and the "gym down the road." People want to know more / get involved / get certified, but they do not know how to. My feeling is that people won't buy into the company, but you will buy into other people who share the same vision and passion that you do. And after talking with Jim Chadwick for 5 minutes, it's apparent that he and other USASF staff want to see us get to a solution to all of these issues.

2. Communication - As a member of the USASF, you aren't really communicated to as to what's in the works at the "central office" We all just sit and speculate that the USASF board members are sitting around drinking a cup of joe in the Varsity break room. I am guilty myself. If there were more emails / press releases from Jim or someone from Memphis to just reach out to the membership, I feel like it would change the sentiment. And I don't mean emails like "You aren't allowed to go to IFC worlds" or whatever happened this past fall, but actual here's where we are as a governing body.

3. Transparency - It's just good business. I attend a church that is one of the 25 most innovative churches in the country. They are a mega church for sure. Week after week people including myself tithe to this church without even batting an eye. Why? because they have quarterly meeting where they invite the congregation to come look at where the money is going. I feel like if the USASF did this then more people would be more willing to join. THE biggest argument about athlete membership is that event producers are worried about "What the USASF is going to do with the extra money" IMO they all just think the USASF is going to give it to VB. I would like to see a prioritized list of where the money would go. I think it would hold the USASF accountable and make a whole lot of people more supportive. And published minutes, including voting results, from the board of directors.

4. EP's speak louder than gym owners - This is where we all come in. If the heavy hitters sitting on the board and in the tier meetings want to stall the things we KNOW will add to the longevity of competitive cheerleading, then we all need to let our voice be known. I am hoping that the NACCC meeting in Doral will address some of these issues, but if not we need to start some grassroots movement around some centralized topics. Like I've heard "change the game." Well as long as EPs have as strong of a voice in the overturning of the rules that are voted in by coaches, individually we can't. BUT together we will be much much louder!!

To answer @BlueCat's post. How would I structure it better. I wouldn't, I like the committees that are in place. I actually support most things about the USASF. I do have mixed feeling about the board of directors. Also IMO the NAB is kinda whack bc most members don't know the people they are voting for, and I would really like to see the coaches have a bigger, stronger voice in the whole process, like the ability to appeal when a rules vote is overturned.

If coaches got all of these things, I don't think you would have to "persuade" them to join and get make their athletes to become members. I think we can all see the good that can be done if the USASF gets power to regulate crossovers, leveling down, age verification, etc. Every coach I've talked to is on board with the USASF.

This summer we are making a big push to talk to gym owners about how they can get involved. I know there will be a divide of gyms who want accountability, fair competition, and sportsmanship, and those who don't. It is why we as an industry are destined to be divided, but I'm ok with that. I think that there should be options. And if people want to continue competing the way they have been, then they are welcomed to. I'm sure however that the majority will want to be in a sport where we know our 14 year olds are not competing against 20 year olds. (Oh it happened)

 

[TheUltimateFan]

I nominate Bluecat as our leader!
and Ultimate Cheer Fan as vice prez

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I am Nobody. It takes Somebodies to make this happen.

My best role is to poke the bear when it starts to turn in circles, getting ready to hibernate.

 

[just_kay_today]

I don't think the purpose of her response was to try to get anyone to say that their opinion of the current crossover rule is "OK". What I think she is saying is that villainizing any one program is counter-productive to the conversation. For my part, CEA has had a medium coed crossover team for years. Atleast, for the seven that we've been here. Before medium was a division at worlds. Usually, they had no competition, so nobody cared back then. The reasons for that team were as stated previously. Now that worlds has become the end/be all, their existence becomes an issue. My questions with situations like this are: what do you tell the other 22 kids? Kids who also throw tumbling and fly in stunts on the team? Kids who worked every bit as hard as their teammates, who already have bids, and as their opponents? What do you tell their parents? Its not a situation I would want to administrate for the CEA, and I don't think it's fair that people on the outside of the situation should use this board to throw stones at the program, either. Doing so may make an armchair quarterback feel better, but it doesn't provide a solution to the problem. I believe discussing changing the rules to suit the current times is a better, very productive way of dealing with it.

I was simply arguing against people saying that "if it isn't specifically against a rule, then it should perfectly acceptable by everyone" idea. It is not black and white like that. Crossovers is not the same as either of the situations I presented.

Gyms that have been using many crossovers for years haven't hidden the fact that they are doing it. It would be silly for anyone to think they will change their mind unless there is a rule change. The same thing works the other way, too, though. People have been voicing their negative opinion on large number of crossovers for years as well. It would be just as silly for people to think that all of a sudden everyone will view it as being OK.

 

[BlueCat]

I don't think the purpose of her response was to try to get anyone to say that their opinion of the current crossover rule is "OK". What I think she is saying is that villainizing any one program is counter-productive to the conversation. For my part, CEA has had a medium coed crossover team for years. Atleast, for the seven that we've been here. Before medium was a division at worlds. Usually, they had no competition, so nobody cared back then. The reasons for that team were as stated previously. Now that worlds has become the end/be all, their existence becomes an issue. My questions with situations like this are: what do you tell the other 22 kids? Kids who also throw tumbling and fly in stunts on the team? Kids who worked every bit as hard as their teammates, who already have bids, and as their opponents? What do you tell their parents? Its not a situation I would want to administrate for the CEA, and I don't think it's fair that people on the outside of the situation should use this board to throw stones at the program, either. Doing so may make an armchair quarterback feel better, but it doesn't provide a solution to the problem. I believe discussing changing the rules to suit the current times is a better, very productive way of dealing with it.

I don't believe that I have mentioned any gym on this thread whatsoever. I also provided at least one potential solution.

 

[just_kay_today]

I wasn't referring to you specifically, but how the thread originated in general. Sorry for not being clearer.

I don't believe that I have mentioned any gym on this thread whatsoever. I also provided at least one potential solution.

 

[imrichhowboutu]

What if crossovers for worlds bid eligible teams were limited? You may not compete for 2 teams competing for a bid. But you could crossover to non worlds teams.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

 

[CoachTamara]

What if crossovers for worlds bid eligible teams were limited? You may not compete for 2 teams competing for a bid. But you could crossover to non worlds teams.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

Although it obviously already happens, I feel like this is just encouraging level 5 athletes to compete on the senior (or junior) 2 team.

 

[redsmom]

What if crossovers for worlds bid eligible teams were limited? You may not compete for 2 teams competing for a bid. But you could crossover to non worlds teams.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

Although it obviously already happens, I feel like this is just encouraging level 5 athletes to compete on the senior (or junior) 2 team.

I took it to be more like allowing them to cross to JR 5 and Sr Restr 5 vs crossing down levels. Crossing between levels also needs some restrictions like those being discussed in other threads.

 

[JumpingJackFlash]

I personally think the biggest test of this will be next year. Now that its pretty much out there and some of the big gyms (and a smaller one) are doing this to obtain bids, will others follow? You have a bomb.com level 5 team and a weak level 5 team in your gym? No worries...Secure your first bid with your best team, then go to another competition, replace 10 from the weak team with your stronger 10 from the better team with the paid bid....and BAM! Paid bids for everyone!

 

[njallday]

i am curious what they would do in case of injury. teams utilizing their 10 replacements up front are putting "all of their eggs in one basket," so to speak. if someone gets injured, they have no room for movement. Look at the example of tsunami at worlds last year. they had an injury, pulled an alternate, and re-performed. these teams will not be able to do this in case of emergency. their team is locked in.

obviously, i hope no one gets injured, but as a coach i don't know if i would take my chances here. maybe only 9 crossovers instead of 10

maybe it's just my obsessive "be prepared for anything" trait that makes me feel this way and i'm alone here.. but, just food for thought.