Discussion in 'Discussing the Cheerleading Industry' started by BlueCat, Jan 26, 2010.
I read it and agree wholeheartedly with what you posted. Simple, easy to track, and efficient.
If I could just get some funding I bet I could get it runnin'
ya I don't think the logistics of setting it up initially would be that difficult at all... Just need some one with some database skills. In comparison to what many data bases and companies handle, all star cheeleaders is a minute number
I agree that "large coed" should be max 15 or 16 guys. But I also don't want to see the dynamic of unlimited coed teams go away. So I hope they decrease the size of the squad from 36 to 30 or 24, 25 (15/15 or 16/8) kind of like what they did with International Coed. I like the idea of putting a cap on number of boys but I want to keep the vibe of unlimited by lowering the total amount of participants. In college isn't there some ratio? You can have this amount of guys for this amount of girls. If they do 16 boys cap and do 1 girl per 2 boys, thats 8 girls. 16 boys and 8 girls... wouldn't that be the same ratio as the current unlimited coed of 22 boys and 14 girls (its not but its close to it.)
Figuring out exactly how to set it up is more difficult than getting it running. If we agreed in detail on what it needed today, I could get it set up before Cheersport next weekend.
College has a 16 (UCA) or 20 (NCA) person limit. UCA talked about limiting the number of guys, I believe to 9, but I don't remember if it was actually done.
lets move worlds to the bahamas!!!
was just in the bahamas. overrated.
i dont think you can completely agree on what it needs until you try and run it. it is just like when i setup the software for this board. i tested it for a whole month... but it wasnt until 1000 people started hammering away at it that problems and challenges arose that I couldnt have foreseen. a year of trial runs would be great.
and the biggest thing.. it has to be easy to use. if it is at all slow or cumbersome it wont work (and possibly slow down the competition. there is generally enough dead time at a comp for teams anyway in the back of warmups to ahve 36 people kick their shoe through.
1. No more "small gym" or "large gym" divisions. Let gyms declare before the season whether they are Division I or Division II. (roughly like NCAA). This is based on your OWN assessment of your experience/talent level. ALL your teams have to compete in that "division" or category for that season - no switching around competition to competition. ONLY Division I programs are eligible for Worlds. If there are enough teams in a competition division, the event producer splits the teams into D1 and D2.
2. Standardized scoresheet/score system While you are at it, make scores more closely reflect what the athletes want to work on and what the audience wants to see. Option: Let each event producer put their own "multiplier" in front of each category score to "weight" them however they feel is appropriate.
3. Event producers MUST share ALL scores from ALL teams. We want to know why Team A beat Team B so we can all make our routines better. Let the teams keep their own judge comments, but we should be able to see the actual scores.
4. Event producers should only have 1 "Nationals" per year. (multi-brand type events not included.)
5. Fewer divisions at Worlds. If there aren't 15 D1 teams registered nationally in any division, it gets combined with it's closest match. (Example: only 11 Large Seniors around this year? - throw 'em in with the smalls.)
6. Deductions are proportional to the number of skills being thrown. If you only put up 5 stunts, dropping 1 should penalize you even more than if you drop 2 out of 11 (do the math.)
7. Fewer, but larger events. Event producers would even be on board with this. Good luck coming up with a way to make that work, though.
8. Worlds rotates between Cali and Fl. (or even more locations.) Why should the same teams have to travel further each season?
9. Split Dance Worlds and Cheer Worlds into separate events Many people want to do both - why not let them? Different weekends.[/quote]
#1 and 4, I don't like.
The rest ROCK!
Drum roll . . . .
15. USASF directly responsible for all Legality judges at events
USASF Sanctioned events hire a "USASF Legality Judge" who administers then entire legality process. They are responsible for ALL decisions regarding any legalities or rule violations and deductions. The event producer would have NO say so in whether something was a warning/deduction. The event producer simply writes them a check.
This would be akin to a football stadium hiring police or paramedics to work an event. The stadiums don't have to worry about giving their paramedics CPR training. This would standardize this side of the judging process AND essentially free the event producers from this responsibility. In theory, coaches would have to get mad at the USASF if there were inconsistencies in legality issues.
The USASF can then have a standardized process that they can review and improve. They could have statistics on rule violations, etc. . .
(If we had a standardized scoring system overall - the whole scoring process could work this way.)
Love it, love it, love it.
And with a system like this in place, judging can be more uniform across the board. There could be local judges moving to regional, national, and even worlds caliber judges after x number of competitions judged or years of experience. There could be judges that specialize in a certain level instead of expecting someone who is used to judging level 1 or 2 to judge level 5. There could be judge training and workshops.. I'd love to judge myself, but can't find the time to figure out how to get started, so I'm all for it!
16. Overhaul the "Infinity Cup".
Assuming you want to keep the award, I have two main issues with the process:
a.) The process of updating results is too slow to even warrant posting the ongoing results. As it stands, at any one point, there is no way to know how accurate current standing are, because they seemingly are never up-to-date. I assume this is because event producers are slow to turn in results. Require a standardized file type (excel spreadsheet?) to make it easier for the administrative side to update the results. (I don't have knowledge of this process, so there may be other issues here.)
b.) The scoring process unfairly distributes points. I would make the points based on your score as compared to ALL teams at the event in your level instead of rank within your division. It shouldn't matter how many teams are in your division - that is beyond your control. If you are in a division by yourself, but you are grand champion of the whole event - you should get more Infinity Cup points than anyone else at the event. This more closely matches the stated goal of letting every team compete against every other in the country. I could bore you with a sample statistical model, comparison of ELO chess and Predictor methods, etc., but you get the general idea.
How fun would this be: If there was standardized scoring, you could simply take a team's top 3 scores for the year from "national" events, average them, and pick your winner. Simple, accurate, exciting, and fair.
Separate names with a comma.