All-Star Competitions Giving Out More Bids Than Advertised

[CharlotteASMom]

I really don't get how these mistakes happen. We are talking a small amount of bids to be given out and just a little research needed to figure out who has what. If the EPs aren't able to discern this then maybe they could check the Fierceboard? Posters here seem to have it straight.

I also find it ironic that CHEERSPORT seems to be able to get this all straight. Don't they give out the most bids of any event, have the most teams to determine who receives what, and face several challenges in determining who already has a bid since the comp is in February?

 

[newcheerdad]

It is a bit different than the scenarios you described in that the Wildcat bid isn't (directly) taking anything away from someone else. It isn't a zero-sum situation like replay or scoring division winners.

Given the assumption that Wildcats would be a strong contender for a paid bid at the later bid events, most other paid-bid-hopefuls in our area are probably excited that 3 perennial Worlds medalists all got their paid bids this weekend. It basically slightly increases the chances of teams like Woodlands Elite Generals/Commanders, Texas Lonestar Red/Co Red, Champion Cheer Heat, Prodigy Midnight, CA FierceKatz, Pro Spirit Sm Coed, etc. to end up with a paid bid at NCA or other events.

The unfortunate things in the whole scenario are:

1. Spirit Med Co didn't get their "moment" of being called out as a bid winner.
2. Wildcats, through no fault of their own, are taking criticism for getting an "unearned" bid.
3. ACA pays for 24 athletes to go to Worlds that they otherwise would not have to have done.
4. ACA gets an undeserved reputation as being either shady or sloppy.

I don't think the issue is as much about fairness to the teams, because heck, who wouldn't want a paid bid to Worlds?

I'm pretty sure the USASF didn't come up with their bid process out of nowhere. It was designed to provide competitive balance between EP's, and to ensure that one area wasn't oversaturated with bids. When EP's circumvent this rule, even if the intent is noble, it throws that competitive balance out of whack.

For me, once you allow this situation to happen once, you set the precedent that makes these rules toothless. And then at that point, you might as well not even bother having the rules and let it be a free-for-all.

https://ismmedia.com/usasf.net/ISM2//Member Documents /USASF_Eventproducer_Membership_09.pdf

 

[imrichhowboutu]

I have a question... What is stopping competitions from giving at large bids to teams with a monetary award? I know there are some competitions that give grand champs extra money.

So why not just give them an at large bid and give them the $650 an athlete on the side?

In terms of cost, it didn't really cost them that much money. I assume they have to budget for the max number of athletes to receive the bids. If 2 large teams had won it would have been 36 + 2 coaches for each team which is basically a total of $50k. In this scenario, this is what happened...
Panthers - 30 + 2 coaches
Wildcats - 24 + 2 coaches
SOT - 30 + 2 coaches
Only cost them $58,500. A company having to pay out only $9k more than what was budgeted is nothing, Then add in the $1k fine and its only $10k.

 

[King]

It is a bit different than the scenarios you described in that the Wildcat bid isn't (directly) taking anything away from someone else. It isn't a zero-sum situation like replay or scoring division winners.

Given the assumption that Wildcats would be a strong contender for a paid bid at the later bid events, most other paid-bid-hopefuls in our area are probably excited that 3 perennial Worlds medalists all got their paid bids this weekend. It basically slightly increases the chances of teams like Woodlands Elite Generals/Commanders, Texas Lonestar Red/Co Red, Champion Cheer Heat, Prodigy Midnight, CA FierceKatz, Pro Spirit Sm Coed, etc. to end up with a paid bid at NCA or other events.

The unfortunate things in the whole scenario are:

1. Spirit Med Co didn't get their "moment" of being called out as a bid winner.
2. Wildcats, through no fault of their own, are taking criticism for getting an "unearned" bid.
3. ACA pays for 24 athletes to go to Worlds that they otherwise would not have to have done.
4. ACA gets an undeserved reputation as being either shady or sloppy.

I agree with those assertions, and would add nothing is done to prevent the problem in the future. There truly is no consequences and for the third time in 4 years it has happened. It is not something that hurts gyms directly, but hurts the fabric of the overall system. And that is what makes it difficult.

 

[yojaehs]

I'm not sure how THIS kind of "mistake" can happen. In the "WCA" fiasco a few years back they actually tried to go the other way and offer FEWER bids. They were kindly reminded that they had a CONTRACT with the USASF that they had to abide by. All EP's are FULLY aware of how many bids they are allowed. Now mention of a USASF mistake that changes things.

 

[BlueCat]

I don't think the issue is as much about fairness to the teams, because heck, who wouldn't want a paid bid to Worlds?

I'm pretty sure the USASF didn't come up with their bid process out of nowhere. It was designed to provide competitive balance between EP's, and to ensure that one area wasn't oversaturated with bids. When EP's circumvent this rule, even if the intent is noble, it throws that competitive balance out of whack.

For me, once you allow this situation to happen once, you set the precedent that makes these rules toothless. And then at that point, you might as well not even bother having the rules and let it be a free-for-all.

https://ismmedia.com/usasf.net/ISM2//Member Documents /USASF_Eventproducer_Membership_09.pdf

This EP was trying to follow the USASF procedures exactly. The problem was caused by a USASF error in the document they provide the EPs prior to the event. That error led to the whole fiasco.

Lest anyone forget, the USASF is made up of a limited number of hard-working people with mostly great intentions. That does not mean that every document, decision, or policy is perfect or even logical. (This is true of NCAA, USAG, etc. as well.) One should always remember this when deciding how much power over the industry's future you are willing to cede to any single bureaucracy.

 

[ACEDAD]

And yes ACEDAD, this did happen at NCA about 4 (??) years ago when WC Cosmic Rays was small coed and did not get a bid that they deserved because NCA mistakenly thought they would have refused it because at that time, there was no "small coed" division at worlds, so they would have had to compete against WC Odyssey. So they "skipped" over C Rays and gave the bid to someone else. A week or so later, NCA remedied that situation by simply giving an additional full paid bid to C Rays. I believe that was the first of these three "mishaps".

Thanks. I was pretty sure it was three.

 

[King]

This EP was trying to follow the USASF procedures exactly. The problem was caused by a USASF error in the document they provide the EPs prior to the event. That error led to the whole fiasco.

Lest anyone forget, the USASF is made up of a limited number of hard-working people with mostly great intentions. That does not mean that every document, decision, or policy is perfect or even logical. (This is true of NCAA, USAG, etc. as well.) One should always remember this when deciding how much power over the industry's future you are willing to cede to any single bureaucracy.

I guess then that is the question: To prevent this do more companies have to 'give in' to a single bureaucracy?

 

[CharlotteASMom]

Sounds like the USASF made an error but I feel blaming it on them is way too easy. Don't EPs have meetings with coaches to determine bid status? I always hear how gyms will let a competition know ahead of time whether they will take an at-large. Wouldn't it be logical to cofirm their bid staus as well? But instead the EP gets to look like the good guy and award an extra bid but blame the USASF for the error. Hmmm...

 

[lakerfantlc]

I think that it is proper to discuss what can be done to prevent this in the future etc. For this event...it happened....what's done is done...I do NOT think BlueCat should even consider declining the bid nor should any one "take" it back. Even when mistakes are made like this...The team that accidentally got the bid was in the top tier in the results...in the hunt...it's not like a last place team was given a bid. Most important....these are kids....they were "given" a paid bid to Worlds...no do overs....they need to keep their "moment". As for Spirit of Texas medium.....I think usasf should recognize them at their next event with a special award...IMO...

 

[King]

Sounds like the USASF made an error but I feel blaming it on them is way too easy. Don't EPs have meetings with coaches to determine bid status? I always hear how gyms will let a competition know ahead of time whether they will take an at-large. Wouldn't it be logical to cofirm their bid staus as well? But instead the EP gets to look like the good guy and award an extra bid but blame the USASF for the error. Hmmm...

And the solution (giving out an extra bid to a very talented team [im doubly trying not to put this back on Wildcats because they are the unfortunate victim in this]) wins in the short run but hurts everyone in the long run.

To all EP's... what is the saying? Pack your own parachute?

 

[King]

I think that it is proper to discuss what can be done to prevent this in the future etc. For this event...it happened....what's done is done...I do NOT think BlueCat should even consider declining the bid nor should any one "take" it back. Even when mistakes are made like this...The team that accidentally got the bid was in the top tier in the results...in the hunt...it's not like a last place team was given a bid. Most important....these are kids....they were "given" a paid bid to Worlds...no do overs....they need to keep their "moment". As for Spirit of Texas medium.....I think usasf should recognize them at their next event with a special award...IMO...

I truly don't believe anyone on here thinks Wildcats should be required OR pushed to give it back.

If ACA had to give one less paid bid next year would that not be the best solution?

 

[BlueCat]

I guess then that is the question: To prevent this do more companies have to 'give in' to a single bureaucracy?

I guess it would be a question of whether you think giving USASF more authority/power would improve things, or make them worse. The answer likely depends on who you ask.

 

[CharlotteASMom]

I truly don't believe anyone on here thinks Wildcats should be required OR pushed to give it back.

If ACA had to give one less paid bid next year would that not be the best solution?

IMO YES!

 

[CharlotteASMom]

The thing I don't like is the EPs fight to be independent when it benefits them but blame the USASF when it's convenient. I can't tell you how many times I am told to "run it by the EPs, we can't tell them how to handle that".