All-Star Competitions Giving Out More Bids Than Advertised

[newcheerdad]

The perception that they may not have the "will to enforce them" bothers me. I don't claim to have excessive knowledge of the USASF but do deal with them as PAC Chairman. I've not experienced them not wanting to do something but more of an extreme balancing act of keeping gyms and EPs happy.

I'm certainly not getting into black helicopter conspiracy theories or anything like that. But I know from experience that rules can be circumvented when they're hard to enforce or cause political strife. I am certainly NOT suggesting that's what's going on here, mind you - but it's naive to think that doesn't happen.

There are several other factors that may be worth considering:
2. ACA actually had enough attending teams this year to qualify for 3 paid bids. I personally think that if an EP gets enough teams to move UP in the number of bids beyond what they had advertised, they should be given the option to give additional bids that year, rather than wait until the following year. (As a gym owner, I of course want as many paid bids as possible given out, however.)

This goes to my point above - at some point, why bother having the rule? Let the market take care of itself. If a event producer wants to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to give out paid bids to every level 5 team that shows up at a competition, then let them. They might not stay in business very long if they did that, but if they want to make that investment in order to attract teams to their competition, perhaps they should have the right to do so.

And how would that policy be substantially different than giving large cash awards to teams that attend non-World's comps? I'm not aware that there are restrictions on that practice, are there?0

 

[CharlotteASMom]

Don't we already complain about EVERYONE getting a bid?

Isn't the point of having the USASF's finger in that to make it an exclusive, best of the best event?

 

[yojaehs]

I'm certainly not getting into black helicopter conspiracy theories or anything like that. But I know from experience that rules can be circumvented when they're hard to enforce or cause political strife. I am certainly NOT suggesting that's what's going on here, mind you - but it's naive to think that doesn't happen.



This goes to my point above - at some point, why bother having the rule? Let the market take care of itself. If a event producer wants to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to give out paid bids to every level 5 team that shows up at a competition, then let them. They might not stay in business very long if they did that, but if they want to make that investment in order to attract teams to their competition, perhaps they should have the right to do so.

And how would that policy be substantially different than giving large cash awards to teams that attend non-World's comps? I'm not aware that there are restrictions on that practice, are there?0

As much as I agree with what your saying, then becomes, how do you regulate "partial" and more importantly AT LARGE bids?

 

[newcheerdad]

Don't we already complain about EVERYONE getting a bid?

Isn't the point of having the USASF's finger in that to make it an exclusive, best of the best event?

As a practical matter, just about everyone gets an at-large bid anyway. I've actually made the point in months past that the whole "at-large" bid system needs to go away. Make Worlds qualification based on either a.) getting a paid bid or b.) competing in a certain number of bid competitions.

As much as I agree with what your saying, then becomes, how do you regulate "partial" and more importantly AT LARGE bids?

As far as partial paid bids go, if an EP wants to give a partial bid, then great. A gym can get a partial at one comp and hand it back to the EP if they get a full paid somewhere else.

The reality is that Worlds really isn't an exclusive competition anyway. It's just a really big one. So rather than keeping up the facade of exclusivity, just make it open to all. It would generate more revenue for the USASF, would be better for gyms to be able to plan for Worlds from the beginning of the season, and could be a boon to event producers if a "minimum bid competition attendance" rule was enforced.

 

[fullinitup]

from what i remember this is how spirit sports does it in palm springs... i am pretty they have a meeting with coaches and the coaches write down which teams they have attending that will accept an at large bid if they don't qualify for a paid bid and which team already have recieved either an at large or paid bid. They then use that to distribute bids accordingly. Seems to have worked really well for them being one of the best comps on the west coast and still continuing to grow!

 

[CharlotteASMom]

Many gyms set a specific schedule well in advance of the season. That schedule is not just developed to get bids but accommodate 90% of the rest of the gym that aren't World potential teams. If a team doesn't get a bid then they don't go.

There are some gym philosophies that have very fluid scheudules and a mentality of continuing to compete until the bid is received, but in my discussions that is not the norm. Bottom line, even with us complaining about the size of Worlds there are a whole lot of teams out there that would love to be at Worlds but didn't get a bid. "Everyone" really doesn't go.

 

[Mom Jeans]

Not to go off topic, but I'm enjoying that there is actually a convo occurring here and it's being kept very professional....very refreshing and productive.

BlueCat you guys really called and offered to give it back..WOW Pretty Amazing!!!! My feel good story of the day=)

 

[wcdad]

I'm almost 100% positive that NCA had to do it as well. If not them, then UCA did it twice.

Can anyone remember?

NCA gave a Full Paid to WC Cosmic Rays several years ago when they made a mistake.

To Kings Question I think if there is a bump in attendance it would be more for the reputation that the EP did the right thing and corrected there mistake. That the EP was doing and had done the right thing for there customers.

 

[lakerfantlc]

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?

yes....if there are mistakes being made at this cost.I think a punishment would be in order....I wasn't saying people were asking for bid to be taken away etc.....bluecat mentioned it and I was giving my thoughts....

 

[mollymags]

from what i remember this is how spirit sports does it in palm springs... i am pretty they have a meeting with coaches and the coaches write down which teams they have attending that will accept an at large bid if they don't qualify for a paid bid and which team already have recieved either an at large or paid bid. They then use that to distribute bids accordingly. Seems to have worked really well for them being one of the best comps on the west coast and still continuing to grow!

I believe a list of accepted bids is sent out every week (I think) by the USASF/Steve Peterson to all Tier 1 and 2 Event Producers. I know the EP I work for gets them, so I'd assume the rest of the EPs would get them. If EPs use this resource combined with the sort of process that you're saying Spirit Sports does, it would likely eliminate this sort of thing.

If this mistake that occurred at ACA really was USASF's fault (I was reading through the thread quickly and that was the impression that I got, feel free to correct me), I feel that they should be the one awarding the paid bid. Almost $17,000 extra dollars is a lot to come out of an EP's pocket if the error truly was caused by USASF.

 

[mom4cheer]

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...

It could be that I am ignorant on this...but why would a competition intentionally want to give another paid bid...doesn't this cost them $25,000 that they would not normally have to pay out?

 

[ztaprincess]

It could be that I am ignorant on this...but why would a competition intentionally want to give another paid bid...doesn't this cost them $25,000 that they would not normally have to pay out?

I don't think it has to be $25K anymore, pretty sure that now it is a certain amount per athlete so depending on the size of the team is how much you get.

 

[kristenthegreat]

It could be that I am ignorant on this...but why would a competition intentionally want to give another paid bid...doesn't this cost them $25,000 that they would not normally have to pay out?

Bid winners are usually more likely to return to a competition..and more often than not, bring their other teams with them. For a gym like CA or CEA, who have TONS of teams, that's THAT many more comp fees, entry fees (if they charge), souvenirs, food, etc..(used those two gyms for size).

 

[mom4cheer]

Bid winners are usually more likely to return to a competition..and more often than not, bring their other teams with them. For a gym like CA or CEA, who have TONS of teams, that's THAT many more comp fees, entry fees (if they charge), souvenirs, food, etc..(used those two gyms for size).

but if everyone "knows" it was a mistake...why would anyone expect it to happen 2 years in a row?

 

[ACEDAD]

It could be that I am ignorant on this...but why would a competition intentionally want to give another paid bid...doesn't this cost them $25,000 that they would not normally have to pay out?

Also because it has wonderful advertising value. ACA now gets to advertise that they are sponsoring CA Wildcats, CA Panthers & SOT coed. That is very likely to attract more teams to their event.