All-Star D1 / D2 Debate

[BlueCat]

(Pulled from Facebook post)

I have tried to come up with a way to at least partially understand or explain the varying opinions on the latest D1/D2 proposals. I would love to give an impassioned, moving, emotional plea for “our” side, but that certainly isn’t my style or strength. My goal isn’t to change anyone’s mind here, but rather frame the debate in a way that is less polarizing or “us vs them” and help the dialogue a little bit.

I will borrow a concept from economics called the “law of diminishing returns”. I’m paraphrasing, but the idea is that if you add a small dose of something and you get a benefit, continuously adding more of it doesn’t necessarily keep adding benefit. Continue past a point and you may start to have negative results.

I will spare you the graph/charts, but give a quick example that we see in our business every day: The volume setting on your sound system. If you push play and the music is too low for anyone to hear, turning up the volume creates an obvious overall benefit and allows you to run routines. If you crank it all the way up (and have a powerful system), it can even reach painful levels that hurt everyone’s ears and be worse than no music at all. In between is where you want to land.

If you are coaching that team, you may want the volume fairly loud so the athletes can "feel" the music. If you are coaching a class (or another team) on the next floor over, you probably want that volume lower. If you are working the front desk in the next room or the business next door, you may have a different opinion about the volume. There can be legitimate disagreement about where the volume knob is set, but it doesn’t have to turn into an argument where one side hates the concept of music and the other wants blood flowing out of the athletes’ ears.

This will be oversimplifying these issues greatly, but here are just a few of the “volume settings” in our industry that I see playing into the D1/D2 issue.

1. Number of overall divisions
2. Scoring adjustments for teams without “full” rosters
3. Exclusivity/prestige of the World Championship
4. Limiting athlete movement from one gym to another
5. Shielding small gyms from competition with larger gyms
6. How satellite/expansion/franchises of large locations are tied to their main locations within the rules

I don’t think any of these issues have quick, easy, obvious answers. Some of the “settings” on one affect how you would want the others to be set. Your own preferred setting for each will vary wildly depending on a number of factors, not least of which is how it benefits you or people in your particular special interest group. Hardly anyone would believe that either extreme end of each setting is best, but we likely disagree about where in the middle you think we should be. Ideally, we can try to find the “sweet spot” for each that maximizes the overall benefit for the industry and doesn’t overly harm any particular group.

I am hoping to keep this thread talking more about how to frame the debate, rather than hash out each individual point. Do you feel differently? Are there other issues that fall into this line of thinking? Am I way off?

 

[tumbleyoda]

I think you have the major points. Things that I see that may be incorporated into these or deserve a separate number because I feel listening to many small gyms over the years they are more important to them based on their experiences:

Fair judging at all times regardless of the size of event, where the judges come from, etc. - this drives the perception - rightly or wrongly that there is favoritism or bias. This is why I have advocated for years for a totally separate judging organization that was not beholden to any EP. Coming from gymnastics this was and still remains to be the strangest unethical arrangement that we continue to accept in this sport. This to me is every near ground zero so to speak of a lot of the disagreement. Anytime a gym shares their experiences they are shushed away UNLESS they are favorable to the company. There is no true recourse if complaints are valid, which many have found to be so but of course by that time the event is over, the kids lost their moment. And then they wonder why we don't go back to those events.

If the judging is spot on, accountable, fair across the board, then I do not think the numbers on a team matters as much. Nor do I think it matters as much on issues as expansion, satellites locations, etc because then it will no longer be assumed that because a gym is branded by a certain name they are automatically better and deserve to win. Divisions can potentially be reduced. It is the never ending issue that small gyms rarely EVER feel they are treated or judged fairly when compared to the larger more well known gyms. We can get rid of the larger squad looks better on the floor and can do more so of course they should score higher mindset AS WELL as the put as few people on the floor as possible so as not to risk falls mindset. Whether we like to admit it or not that has been a major part of the history of this business down through the years and there is very little belief that anyone truly in power wants to do anything to change it. Because change affects their business model which therefore affects how much money they make. In my opinion the majority of what you mention above has been caused at the root by unequal, unfair, biased judging to achieve certain results that were deemed more profitable than others. But rather than fixing that, we keep moving these things to the other side of the plate and deal with other things. (Note: I have little problem with this making money for your business mindset - my issue is not admitting it from the beginning BEFORE gyms spend their money so people can make up their own minds whether to support it or not. And the silencing of anyone that speaks contrary to the party line.)

The other thing would be the rule changes, in particular the timing of the release of them as well as the enforcement of current rules. I am a big proponent of safety so I am all in favor of rules that help keep the athlete safe. But releasing rules after teams have been formed seems from anecdotal evidence to be more of a detriment to smaller gyms. Teams would be put together way differently if they were known in April than November/December. And while I agree this affects large gyms as well the difference is the small gym may end up losing athletes at tryouts to other gyms or out of the sport altogether that they can not place, that if they had the rule changes they might of been able to find a place for them.

Thank you for posting this here. I refuse to post in that venomous pit over there on anything of substance especially if it is against party lines. And I am not the only small gym director, coach, or owner that feels that way.

 

[BlueCat]

Good points. I think an independent judging body would be a welcome change, but I don't think Big V wants that, so it is probably a non-starter. They feel that judge quality and judge training (along with scoring system) is a business advantage they have over others, so they don't want to give that up. I don't necessarily fault them for that, but I do think - in the long run - your suggestion would be an improvement over the status quo.

I think that the safety judging would be a logical first step towards independent judging. There is no reason an EP should have a say in when something is a warning and when it is a penalty.

I do believe that, in general, routine complexity and density has increased faster than the scoring system and typical judge's ability to fairly score it. Especially as you go up in level, the amount of skills/transitions/elements in routines is nearly impossible to take in live.

For what it is worth, I think that judge bias exists at times, but it is far less common and pronounced than is accused. There are absolutely times when I am upset with results, but usually (not always) after I have calmed down and reviewed video and scores they tend to make much more sense.

In general, I think "honest" errors are fairly common, unconscious bias is occasional, and blatant, intentional bias is very rare.

 

[cupieqt]

I have been watching the D1/D2 volley and trying to formulate my own opinions about it all. Like @tumbleyoda though, I do not feel comfortable speaking freely in that group. There are way too many hotheaded “snacks in the grass” to have a rational and thoughtful dialogue.

My biggest concern at the moment is not about WHO is D1/D2 but why we even have these splits if they’re not going to be utilized at every event. Why designate a gym as D1/D2 if they’re not going to be split?

We just left a competition that had a lot of wonderful gyms from both designations. Unfortunately the divisions that weren’t lucky enough to be split had their own very distinct split at awards. All the teams in the top half were D1. All the teams in the bottom, D2.

This is why D2 gyms coaches and owners get upset. Why have the designation at all? What’s the point?

It’s very rare for the D2 gym to beat the D1. This was a topic even BEFORE that special designation when it was just small gym/large gym. So nothing really has changed there except what....the 6th place D2 team wins a paid bid to the D2 Summit behind a few teams that can’t get a bid to the Summit at all?

I do remember the first D2 Summit and there were MANY division winners with brand name gym logos on their uniforms. It was a bit disheartening. I personally spoke to a gym owner driving between Tampa and Orlando since he had teams at both events that year. I was glad the rule was made about multiple locations.

But, we have occasionally won against large gyms. And we have regularly beaten small gyms with large gym logos. So I don’t care who identifies as D1/D2. I just care that if we have these designations, that they’re split consistently. Otherwise, what’s the point?

 

[BlueCat]

I really like the tone of the conversation here dramatically better than ASGA. However, that seems to reach more people these days. Bummer.

 

[alpaca]

I really like the tone of the conversation here dramatically better than ASGA. However, that seems to reach more people these days. Bummer.

I would like to be part of the discussion but given that I am not an owner or coach, I don't have access to the FB group. If you want parent opinions, I'll chime in.

 

[BlueCat]

I would like to be part of the discussion but given that I am not an owner or coach, I don't have access to the FB group. If you want parent opinions, I'll chime in.

I'm not opposed to anyone sharing their opinion.

 

[alpaca]

My biggest concern at the moment is not about WHO is D1/D2 but why we even have these splits if they’re not going to be utilized at every event. Why designate a gym as D1/D2 if they’re not going to be split?

We just left a competition that had a lot of wonderful gyms from both designations. Unfortunately the divisions that weren’t lucky enough to be split had their own very distinct split at awards. All the teams in the top half were D1. All the teams in the bottom, D2.

This is why D2 gyms coaches and owners get upset. Why have the designation at all? What’s the point?

I just found out that at our comp this weekend there will not be a D1/D2 split. Also, not a small/medium, split. So D2 gyms with 15 kids on the team will be competing directly against D1 gyms with 28 kids on the team. Some of the D1 gyms at this comp have teams with multiple Worlds titles.

I anticipate the same kind of scenario at awards where the D1 gyms are in the top of the division and the D2 gyms are at the bottom. CP's team that is accustomed to placing 1st or 2nd in D2 will likely place much lower. So as a parent my question becomes : Do I prepare my child ahead of time for the possibility of placing much lower than they usually do? Or do I deal with it after the fact when we have already experienced a long and stressful day.

 

[tumbleyoda]

I really like the tone of the conversation here dramatically better than ASGA. However, that seems to reach more people these days. Bummer.

Agree. I feel like here we can agree to disagree without being attacked publicly or privately. Over there it is almost become like the old ProX boards if you disagree with the wrong people or policy.

I agree that V has a great business inroad with judging and are unlikely to give it up voluntarily. However I do think that some of the moves being made with ICU, IASF, USASF etc in regards to FIG and the Olympics may eventually force that hand. But that is still a way down the road and many rule tweaks to go. Yet I contend as I have for years that is the number one issue driving many of these disagreements is the judging and the we own and run all of this mindset of V. If they don't separate it the question that rises is why? In my mind it is because they need to make sure that the results match the reality they want to be seen. Hence the current you are in range but after that it is subjective so they can make win whomever they want or need to. Most times it may be spot on. But again when it is not, and it is your program that is directly affected it sucks and makes you not want to be a part of it.

Before there was D1/D2 we had these judging issues. Every year we hear of them And no they many not be widespread but they are enough that that can not be merely considered an outlier. One thing you have to remember that many do not talk because they believe they will be looked upon unfavorably, or that they will not be heard. That has been built up over years. And while it may be a small percentage, when it affects your program personally - keeps you out of a top spot, prevents you from obtaining a bid - or an extra bid magically appears and is given to a gym that the EP used to own that if the scores were corrected would of gone to your gym, it matters.

An honest question: much talk is made about recitals - ie having no competition. My concern is about exhibitions ie competing when you know you have no chance to win. The illusion is everyone has a chance. The reality is everyone does not. Even this past weekend a tweet was sent out about a division that was down to two teams on the last day. Yet three were in the division. Now perhaps from a score perspective it was correct that only two had a chance to win. Or emotional. Or promotional. But imagine being the third team and being made to feel (even if unintentionally) like you did not even matter. Was that intentional? Not at all, I believe.

But I do remember years ago many V employees and advocates were complaining about why teams wouldn't come to compete knowing they could not win but just be on the same stage as a TG, CEA, CA, WC, etc team to see what winning looks like. There was a push to for teams and programs to go to Worlds just as spectators so that the Milk House would be full but that the fans would not have to suffer with watching teams with no chance to be in the top ten. Now it seems that same mindset has crept into a lot of our larger competitions. As a director, there is no way I would spend 10,000.00 plus to just go exhibition at any competition knowing I had no fair chance to at least make the stand. I would never do that to my parents. That is not avoiding competition. That is being wise with what the parents pay us.

One last thing. It is a red herring to say that the reason D2 wants the split is because we want to win. That is not the issue I see or hear. Yes winning is great but at the end of the day it is not to win, but compete fairly. That has been twisted by many to make it seem that all gyms want to do is win so that is why we want our own division. No, we want to compete, be looked at fairly, judged fairly and rise or fall on those merits. If we we win or lose, let it be fair.

D1 does not want recitals. D2 does not want exhibitions. Can we find common ground? I believe so.

 

[tumbleyoda]

I just found out that at our comp this weekend there will not be a D1/D2 split. Also, not a small/medium, split. So D2 gyms with 15 kids on the team will be competing directly against D1 gyms with 28 kids on the team. Some of the D1 gyms at this comp have teams with multiple Worlds titles.

I anticipate the same kind of scenario at awards where the D1 gyms are in the top of the division and the D2 gyms are at the bottom. CP's team that is accustomed to placing 1st or 2nd in D2 will likely place much lower. So as a parent my question becomes : Do I prepare my child ahead of time for the possibility of placing much lower than they usually do? Or do I deal with it after the fact when we have already experienced a long and stressful day.

My understanding is this may become more and more frequent and is being driven by other things.

We constantly tell our athletes that they can only control their effort, attitude, and performance. Everything else is out of their hands. But if they do that, then they can walk off the mat with their heads held high to family full of hugs and high fives knowing they did what they could do. That is all they can do. The rest is up to us as coaches, directors to work thru and plan.

 

[BlueCat]

Agree. I feel like here we can agree to disagree without being attacked publicly or privately. Over there it is almost become like the old ProX boards if you disagree with the wrong people or policy.

I agree that V has a great business inroad with judging and are unlikely to give it up voluntarily. However I do think that some of the moves being made with ICU, IASF, USASF etc in regards to FIG and the Olympics may eventually force that hand. But that is still a way down the road and many rule tweaks to go. Yet I contend as I have for years that is the number one issue driving many of these disagreements is the judging and the we own and run all of this mindset of V. If they don't separate it the question that rises is why? In my mind it is because they need to make sure that the results match the reality they want to be seen. Hence the current you are in range but after that it is subjective so they can make win whomever they want or need to. Most times it may be spot on. But again when it is not, and it is your program that is directly affected it sucks and makes you not want to be a part of it.

Before there was D1/D2 we had these judging issues. Every year we hear of them And no they many not be widespread but they are enough that that can not be merely considered an outlier. One thing you have to remember that many do not talk because they believe they will be looked upon unfavorably, or that they will not be heard. That has been built up over years. And while it may be a small percentage, when it affects your program personally - keeps you out of a top spot, prevents you from obtaining a bid - or an extra bid magically appears and is given to a gym that the EP used to own that if the scores were corrected would of gone to your gym, it matters.

An honest question: much talk is made about recitals - ie having no competition. My concern is about exhibitions ie competing when you know you have no chance to win. The illusion is everyone has a chance. The reality is everyone does not. Even this past weekend a tweet was sent out about a division that was down to two teams on the last day. Yet three were in the division. Now perhaps from a score perspective it was correct that only two had a chance to win. Or emotional. Or promotional. But imagine being the third team and being made to feel (even if unintentionally) like you did not even matter. Was that intentional? Not at all, I believe.

But I do remember years ago many V employees and advocates were complaining about why teams wouldn't come to compete knowing they could not win but just be on the same stage as a TG, CEA, CA, WC, etc team to see what winning looks like. There was a push to for teams and programs to go to Worlds just as spectators so that the Milk House would be full but that the fans would not have to suffer with watching teams with no chance to be in the top ten. Now it seems that same mindset has crept into a lot of our larger competitions. As a director, there is no way I would spend 10,000.00 plus to just go exhibition at any competition knowing I had no fair chance to at least make the stand. I would never do that to my parents. That is not avoiding competition. That is being wise with what the parents pay us.

One last thing. It is a red herring to say that the reason D2 wants the split is because we want to win. That is not the issue I see or hear. Yes winning is great but at the end of the day it is not to win, but compete fairly. That has been twisted by many to make it seem that all gyms want to do is win so that is why we want our own division. No, we want to compete, be looked at fairly, judged fairly and rise or fall on those merits. If we we win or lose, let it be fair.

D1 does not want recitals. D2 does not want exhibitions. Can we find common ground? I believe so.

I don't want to misrepresent what you are saying. Am I getting that you don't think "big brand" gyms should be allowed go D2 because you think they get more favorable judging. This is based on "name on the chest" and isn't because of what happens on the mat. Is that an accurate representation of your opinion?

 

[FamousxMindset]

I was a director a very small franchise gym under 45 athletes, we worked did the best we could and built our teams to be as successful as possible. However, we still fell short to many of the d1 counterparts. We didn't share athletes, the coaches from the other mega locations literally never stepped foot in our gym. I joined the gym after the MERGER happened but I wouldn't have been in support of it, it rarely helps up in situations.

If we were d2 we have absolutely been killing it, because we would have competed against similar talent pools.

 

[tumbleyoda]

I don't want to misrepresent what you are saying. Am I getting that you don't think "big brand" gyms should be allowed go D2 because you think they get more favorable judging. This is based on "name on the chest" and isn't because of what happens on the mat. Is that an accurate representation of your opinion?

No. I have no issue with it if that is what is. I do feel there is a large difference between the two and it is not always as simple as competing one 2:30 routine against another. But that is a different conversation.

The concern is and always has been from smaller gyms or D2 gyms that when compared the big brand gyms they are not judged fairly. That IMO is part of what pushed the concept of D1 and D2 (along that of resources, recruiting, etc) That there is an automatic assumption that they will be better. This is why I stick on the point of judging being fair, transparent and accountable. If I know I am judged fairly, transparently and judges or EP's will be held accountable in real time for errors that affect my business, then I have no issue competing against anyone.

In my mind D2 exists in part because gyms felt across the board and based on their anecdotal evidence that they were not treated fairly. Fix that, and you start to solve the true problem.

 

[tumbleyoda]

I was a director a very small franchise gym under 45 athletes, we worked did the best we could and built our teams to be as successful as possible. However, we still fell short to many of the d1 counterparts. We didn't share athletes, the coaches from the other mega locations literally never stepped foot in our gym. I joined the gym after the MERGER happened but I wouldn't have been in support of it, it rarely helps up in situations.

If we were d2 we have absolutely been killing it, because we would have competed against similar talent pools.

Agree. We struggle with school cheer being as big as it is here so many kids literally only do All Stars to get ready for Middle School and High School tryouts. Then add in competitive Soccer, Volleyball, Hockey along with many other sports and activities and we have a much different talent pool. That is before you even start addressing the issues of cost. Then if you add in recruiting, ethics, and numerous other issues, it makes a big difference.

We can hold our own and if we were D1 we would manage. Not win, but be competitive to some degree. But numbers wise we would still be a small gym as far as cheer goes. D2 gives us the opportunity to build our brand and strength BEFORE going D1 not to stay D2 forever.

 

[BlueCat]

No. I have no issue with it if that is what is. I do feel there is a large difference between the two and it is not always as simple as competing one 2:30 routine against another. But that is a different conversation.

The concern is and always has been from smaller gyms or D2 gyms that when compared the big brand gyms they are not judged fairly. That IMO is part of what pushed the concept of D1 and D2 (along that of resources, recruiting, etc) That there is an automatic assumption that they will be better. This is why I stick on the point of judging being fair, transparent and accountable. If I know I am judged fairly, transparently and judges or EP's will be held accountable in real time for errors that affect my business, then I have no issue competing against anyone.

In my mind D2 exists in part because gyms felt across the board and based on their anecdotal evidence that they were not treated fairly. Fix that, and you start to solve the true problem.

I apologize, but I don't think I am following. I am not sure how to word the difference, but do you believe it is because scores ARE wrong, or because they are PERCEIVED to be wrong because of a lack of transparency?

I am with you generally on the perception issue. I'm not sure that I am with you as much on the errors - at least from a "let's change the scores so that big gym X will come back" point of view. I wouldn't say that NEVER happens, but I think it is far less prevalent than is assumed. We are as big a customer as anyone and we lose close competitions to smaller programs all the time. I have also never been made any type of offer about "favorable judging" in return for attendance. (Maybe they know that even just the offer would mean we never attend that event ever again.)