Changes in the Big D.

[allgoodpeople]

Back before my day in all stars, I believe there used to be an unlimited amount of kids on teams, and even in the early 2000's I believe they could have like 40ish or something like that. When they changed the max number on teams to 36 did that destroy the "look" or "creativity" a team had? Did it cause those teams with the ability to have 40-50-60 kids on the floor to lose kids to other gyms or have no place for them? I don't personally know but I doubt it. I just don't think limiting the number of kids on a team to 30 is going to destroy our sport. I don't think it's going to substantially change anything. Now 24 is a different story and I think I've already stated I'm against that proposal unless it's the ONLY option we have. But why should our industry cater to F5, Stars, Sr. Elite, Marlins, PSS, etc. just because they are doing fine? What about the 100's of other gyms that aren't? You keep using Cheersport as an example, but even Cheersport splits divisions based on size of teams. Most competitions aren't big enough to do that so what we are proposing is that the max be limited to keep team sizes closer together. Then there's no need to split divisions at any competition.

Well, there is the basis of the disagreement, it's a reasonable argument and I think you certainly have the horses to carpe diem. I understand, I just think it's a mistake. We'll see how it turns out and what happens.

 

[SharkDad]

I see very specific examples being thrown around. From all the videos and discussions I've read/watched, I don't really believe that anyone is catering to any one type of program or team.

The 24 max suggestion solves problems for some gyms. The 30/20 suggestion solves them for others. There are still some regional meetings left to hear everyone out. Coaches from different gym sizes all over the country are bringing up some very good points.

In January EVERY member gets a vote so I think there is plenty of time to take a look at this and hopefully present some well thought out options.

I personally feel that the 30/20 option provides a solution to most of the concerns I have read or seen and provides the most flexibilty to the sport as a whole.

 

[KB_Legend]

I'm gonna dust the cobwebs off my keyboard and weigh in on this VERY briefly... I have not read the board in a long time and this is a big thread so I'm just gonna throw out some quick points.

First off I will say that I will be VERY shocked if we go straight from 20/36 to one division of 24! Regardless of what the writing on the wall is right now or what particular brand of grease today's squeaky wheel is looking for, in the end I don't see the final decision makers taking that leap just yet. I respect everyones opinion on the matter, but that is my own particular gut feeling

Someone asked if a number change would also change the teams we tend to see winning major comps. I will say that is a big no... There are tons of great coaches out there and there are some other factor that contribute but the reason you see the same gyms at or near the top on a consistent basis has more to do with a good system and great coaching than anything else! I have traveled all over this country working with cheerleaders of every level and every background and I will tell you kids are all the same (slightly more polite in the south) it's who has the ability to motivate and train them, and exploit a score sheet! The UCLA basketball team didn't go from a losing record to 10 NCAA titles and 4 undefeated seasons because Bill Walton and Lewis Alcindor Junior went there, those guys went there because John Wooden was creating champions out of average athletes (it happens all the time feel free to fill in one of many other iconic coaches, that just happens to be my favorite)

Someone asked how it would effect OUR gym... I will say, rather definitively, that a switch to 20/30 would change our gym very little, the lower end of each team would trickle down and we would probably make one small team large or create another team somewhere but I am confident we would not have to cut anyone... A change to 24 across the board would be more difficult (and less desirable IMO) but we would probably spread boys around a little more and have LOTS of divisions with a 24 person all girl team and a 24 person coed team, again I don't think we would really have to turn away many/any kids... I don't mean to speak for our whole program but I don't think anyone would really disagree when I say it is way more important to us that other gyms grow and we have lots of teams to compete against

Last thing, I feel like sometimes we think that the current standard of 20/36 has always been "the way" and it would be blasphemy to change it, but in reality the division sizes have been almost as dynamic as the rules! Now I'm only 26 and I recognize that there have been MANY people involved in this sport MUCH longer than me, but even I have seen the numbers go from unlimited to 40 to 35, to 36... The industry is still trying to find that sweet spot.

Very few changes in life are permanent, be the champion of whatever your particular cause is, but a change to 24, or 20/30 or no change at all will not be the END of the sport or the sport as we know it, some will have more dramatic short term impacts and other will be more noticeable over a longer period of time, but the system is set up to evolve and can continue to change if the next model isn't what's best

 

[King]

I'm gonna dust the cobwebs off my keyboard and weigh in on this VERY briefly... I have not read the board in a long time and this is a big thread so I'm just gonna throw out some quick points.

First off I will say that I will be VERY shocked if we go straight from 20/36 to one division of 24! Regardless of what the writing on the wall is right now or what particular brand of grease today's squeaky wheel is looking for, in the end I don't see the final decision makers taking that leap just yet. I respect everyones opinion on the matter, but that is my own particular gut feeling

Someone asked if a number change would also change the teams we tend to see winning major comps. I will say that is a big no... There are tons of great coaches out there and there are some other factor that contribute but the reason you see the same gyms at or near the top on a consistent basis has more to do with a good system and great coaching than anything else! I have traveled all over this country working with cheerleaders of every level and every background and I will tell you kids are all the same (slightly more polite in the south) it's who has the ability to motivate and train them, and exploit a score sheet! The UCLA basketball team didn't go from a losing record to 10 NCAA titles and 4 undefeated seasons because Bill Walton and Lewis Alcindor Junior went there, those guys went there because John Wooden was creating champions out of average athletes (it happens all the time feel free to fill in one of many other iconic coaches, that just happens to be my favorite)

Someone asked how it would effect OUR gym... I will say, rather definitively, that a switch to 20/30 would change our gym very little, the lower end of each team would trickle down and we would probably make one small team large or create another team somewhere but I am confident we would not have to cut anyone... A change to 24 across the board would be more difficult (and less desirable IMO) but we would probably spread boys around a little more and have LOTS of divisions with a 24 person all girl team and a 24 person coed team, again I don't think we would really have to turn away many/any kids... I don't mean to speak for our whole program but I don't think anyone would really disagree when I say it is way more important to us that other gyms grow and we have lots of teams to compete against

Last thing, I feel like sometimes we think that the current standard of 20/36 has always been "the way" and it would be blasphemy to change it, but in reality the division sizes have been almost as dynamic as the rules! Now I'm only 26 and I recognize that there have been MANY people involved in this sport MUCH longer than me, but even I have seen the numbers go from unlimited to 40 to 35, to 36... The industry is still trying to find that sweet spot.

Very few changes in life are permanent, be the champion of whatever your particular cause is, but a change to 24, or 20/30 or no change at all will not be the END of the sport or the sport as we know it, some will have more dramatic short term impacts and other will be more noticeable over a longer period of time, but the system is set up to evolve and can continue to change if the next model isn't what's best

Where you been? Playing chess?

 

[KB_Legend]

No I've been making a living!!! Hahaha, that's what us lowly cheer coaches do in the summer time

 

[King]

and i just thought you were fired and moved back this whole time. glad to see youre not!

 

[allgoodpeople]

No I've been making a living!!! Hahaha, that's what us lowly cheer coaches do in the summer time

Good stuff KB, cannot disagree with any of it except remember, John Wooden also had his Sam Gilbert, and the best athletes in the country before they learned the Wooden way of lacing their shoes.

That said, I still wonder why the push at Worlds? The first step of a larger agenda to change along the lines of what King has proposed for comprehensive reform? Or are we just changing Worlds because USASF is more open to deliberation?

 

[King]

I am not sure what you mean push at worlds?

There are 6 things that need to get passed this year that would completely change our sport for the better:

1. Universal Scoresheet

2. universal crossover rules - either we all get to use the hell out of 'em or we are limited. either way that should not vary with a competition so people do not have to pick their teams based on what compeittions have what crossover rules

3. USASF athlete registration system - This is going to be attempted and IF it is pulled off correctly it can fix age cheating, rosters, gym hopping and improve insurance and safety for everyone as well as give the usasf real governing body power

4. large down to 30

5. international divisions are only 17+ (and push and encourage more colleges to come and compete)

6. all competition entities are only allowed 1 'nationals' where they can hand out bids. everything else is a regionals or whatever.

 

[allgoodpeople]

I am not sure what you mean push at worlds?

There are 6 things that need to get passed this year that would completely change our sport for the better:

1. Universal Scoresheet

2. universal crossover rules - either we all get to use the hell out of 'em or we are limited. either way that should not vary with a competition so people do not have to pick their teams based on what compeittions have what crossover rules

3. USASF athlete registration system - This is going to be attempted and IF it is pulled off correctly it can fix age cheating, rosters, gym hopping and improve insurance and safety for everyone as well as give the usasf real governing body power

4. large down to 30

5. international divisions are only 17+ (and push and encourage more colleges to come and compete)

6. all competition entities are only allowed 1 'nationals' where they can hand out bids. everything else is a regionals or whatever.

Pretty much agree, but I think 32 is better if limited, but if there are still small and large divisions, I could be happy with either choice. What gets me with this is the focus on large to 30. Everything else makes perfect sense, ideas are broad, across the board and clearly would be beneficial for standardization of all divisions. Then out of the blue comes large to 30. Where does that come from? How about 10 crossovers for everyone from one level to another, say junior to senior. I assume you are concerned about the drop off in the numbers of large teams. There are many, many around that say go to one division of 24, no small or large, and you take care of the problem. Is that a good idea? You are opening a bag that does not need to be opened I'm afraid. I think #4 is going to end up killing what you are trying to save.

Oh well, fight already fought, battle already lost. Charge ahead.

 

[King]

I think it is about the psychology of the numbers. The most group stunts you can have with 30 is 7, the most with 20 is 5. So if you are legally large at 21 you are at worst only going to be numerically down 2 stunts from a team that is maxing out. Currently you can be 4 stunts down. 32 is still 3 stunts. I think a team at 21 people entering large can be 'competitive' with 5 stunts against 7. And the number 30 also allows some breathing room for larger teams to have that injury / tumbler who cant stunt.

Will the winners change? No. How much they win by might shrink, but I think margin of victory is all relative anyway. There will still be an asymptote in a score for less competitive gyms, it just wont be as egregious.

 

[allgoodpeople]

Well now that we settled all that , how about no doubles in youth?

 

[KB_Legend]

I disagree... I think the margin of victory for the winning teams will actually be greater, but we are talking semantics at this point

 

[King]

I disagree... I think the margin of victory for the winning teams will actually be greater, but we are talking semantics at this point

I think you would find the numeric value lessoned (instead of a team winning by 20 points they would win by 10) but that 10 points would be just as 'far away' as ever.

I can't think of the proper analogy. It's like they'd be so close, yet still so far away.

 

[Mclovin]

Well now that we settled all that , how about no doubles in youth?

Ok, here we go. lol I disagree that doubles should be removed from youth. I would agree, however, that stunting (double downs from single leg) should be removed. I know dozens of youth aged kids that have been able to complete a perfect double and then some way before they aged out of youth, yet I see SOOO many junior and senior aged kids that do not complete a perfect double. I do not believe youth aged kids should be held back in their tumbling. But if you want to talk stunting, I might actually be on the same page as you.

 

[SharkDad]

I think this decision should be made to find a solution to a couple of problems in the industry:

1. There needs to be more competition in all the divisions (I am not just speaking about Level 5), so we need to eliminate divisions or sizes that create very little opportunities.
2. Most gyms cannot field a competitive large team at 36, but many can be competitive with more than 20.

I hope the rules committe and NACCC use an objective problem solving method to arrive at and present the final proposals. IMO this decision and the discussion process used should not have anything to do with who will win or by what margin.