All-Star D1 / D2 Debate

[BlueCat]

Don’t you think the big name gym bias can go the other way? You expect “big name” gym to have great jumps and when they don’t they are scored more harshly than “no name” gym for doing comparable jumps?

I catch our coaches saying that from time to time. We have even seen comments on scoresheets that would reinforce that theory. However, I don't think this is any more prevalent than bias the other way. Again, I am not saying that there is zero bias - just that it is less prevalent than is assumed. I agree that more transparency would help either dispel rumors of bias OR punish any actual bias.

The downside to EPs is that transparency makes good judging more valuable and bad judging more of a liability. Neither of those are good for the EPs in the short run.

 

[cheermomforever]

Unless all coaches discuss and exchange scores we will never know if teams get bids from scores or "judges discretion". Now that would be interesting if they did!

 

[ChicagoCheerDad]

I think nearly everyone would be in favor of improvement and more transparency in judging. I firmly believe that the pace and density of routines has outpaced improvements in the judging system. It is nearly impossible to watch some teams and catch everything. I don't know what the answer is, but judging and score systems need more attention and effort.

I do believe that the majority of the time, the biggest "bias" is in the coaches/fans watching the teams. I am more than guilty of this myself, but you tend to see the great in your own team and the bad in your competitors. You complain about a judge seeing things differently if they are "fans" of a particular program, but no one on the planet is a bigger fan of a program than the coaches of those teams. You also know the routine backwards and forwards. It is impossible to watch one of your own teams, your "favorite" teams, and the teams you "sports-hate" with a clear eye. You believe that when the scores don't match what you saw, it must be the judges that are wrong, when in most (not all) cases, it is your own opinion that is off. Again, I freely admit that this happens to me as well.

Again, if you think that "liking" a program affects a judge's ability to objectively watch a routine, realize that this applies at least as much to coaches as well. Coaches tend to have far more bias than judges. I am not suggesting that judges never make mistakes, simply that MOST of the time there is less bias than is claimed.

Now to improvement suggestions:

I have always been a fan of scripting routine skills ahead of time. The judges still watch to make sure the skills are performed, but they don't have to actually try to count every single item. There should be the opportunity to make last-minute adjustments by the coach, but a team should be lightly penalized for going off-script and heavily penalized if a coach was obviously trying to be deceptive on their script.

I don't think subjectivity goes away or even diminishes, but there are parts of the sport that are theoretically objective. We should be more accurate on those parts.

I have also always been a fan of (semi) public scoring. I think coaches should have access to all scores for all divisions. I think judge comments are OK to be seen by only the teams, but the actual scores should be seen by every coach. I don't necessarily think that every Suzy Cheer Parent needs to see all of this because they will often take things out of context and cause issues with the teams. However, if your team gets beat, you should be able to clearly see why they lost. You shouldn't have to rely on a judge telling you to in their comments, you should see the scores. If there is bias or flat-out mistakes, these will be in the open.

Don't get me wrong, I have been angry about results more than a few times over the years. Generally (not always) seeing the score breakdowns allows me to better see things from the judges' perspective. I am usually less upset after seeing every score.

About your team-count idea - I do like that it would create an incentive to have larger teams. One of the biggest negatives of our current setup (grid, bid-chasing, and score sheet combined) is that it encourages small, skill-maxed rosters. There is nothing wrong with small teams necessarily - there are some amazing small teams out there, but shrinking team sizes generally raise the sport's cost per athlete significantly.

I don't know that I would be in favor of the idea as a whole, but I do like that you would probably see some larger teams because of it.

I love the scripting idea, I think that would greatly help judges in knowing what to look for. I also think like ice skating having a grade of execution to each element instead of a section would be a step in the right direction.

There is another concerning practice that goes on with the judges that I would like to see banned or stopped, and that is gyms hiring Varsity judges to come and "consult" on their routines. This is not a shot at the big gyms either, My CP has been at a small gym that did this, and I am aware from other parents and coaches of large well known gyms that do this. To me this gives an unfair advantage as there is no way to know whether you might run into that judge at a later date and have them judging you at a competition, and if you make the changes they have recommended based on their notes you are likely to score higher. That doesn't even go into the psychological factor of gym A paid me but gym B did not. In my industry we are trained that even the appearance that something is improper can be enough for it to be actually improper. Therefore I am not allowed to take on any kind of outside consulting arrangement in my industry or accept any gifts of monetary value from my customer or partners, it seems like judging should be held to the same standard.

I disagree on not giving the scores out to the general public, I think they 100% should be just as gymnastics, ice skating and diving do. Yes the uninformed parents might not understand that a routine is not performed with the same execution and timing every time it is done and might not understand the variance in scores, but it is always better to be transparent with information with your fans and customers, it helps keep the appearance of a fair competition and that there is nothing to hide. That being said with Summit bids being 100% score based this year, I would propose that scores not be made public until the after the Summit reveal.

 

[alpaca]

Unless all coaches discuss and exchange scores we will never know if teams get bids from scores or "judges discretion". Now that would be interesting if they did!

It reminds me of not discussing your salary with you co-workers. The people at the top don't want the employees to know if their business practices are fair and equitable.

 

[BlueCat]

I love the scripting idea, I think that would greatly help judges in knowing what to look for. I also think like ice skating having a grade of execution to each element instead of a section would be a step in the right direction.

There is another concerning practice that goes on with the judges that I would like to see banned or stopped, and that is gyms hiring Varsity judges to come and "consult" on their routines. This is not a shot at the big gyms either, My CP has been at a small gym that did this, and I am aware from other parents and coaches of large well known gyms that do this. To me this gives an unfair advantage as there is no way to know whether you might run into that judge at a later date and have them judging you at a competition, and if you make the changes they have recommended based on their notes you are likely to score higher. That doesn't even go into the psychological factor of gym A paid me but gym B did not. In my industry we are trained that even the appearance that something is improper can be enough for it to be actually improper. Therefore I am not allowed to take on any kind of outside consulting arrangement in my industry or accept any gifts of monetary value from my customer or partners, it seems like judging should be held to the same standard.

I disagree on not giving the scores out to the general public, I think they 100% should be just as gymnastics, ice skating and diving do. Yes the uninformed parents might not understand that a routine is not performed with the same execution and timing every time it is done and might not understand the variance in scores, but it is always better to be transparent with information with your fans and customers, it helps keep the appearance of a fair competition and that there is nothing to hide. That being said with Summit bids being 100% score based this year, I would propose that scores not be made public until the after the Summit reveal.

I'm not opposed to the scores being absolutely public, but I think that is a tougher sell to the EPs. Getting them to be open to all coaches would be an improvement from where we are.

I am mixed on the outside-consulting of judging. The main reason I would be for it is that good judges get far too little pay as-is. If supplementing their income keeps the strongest judges in the sport, then that may be a worthy trade-off, IMO. (It also gives the judges some real-world practice before big events.). There are far bigger conflict-of-interest situations happening in our sport, IMO.

I do not like hiding the scores until after Summit reveal. In fairness, I would abolish the Summit completely - at least in its current form - for many reasons.

 

[CGAcheer]

I'm not opposed to the scores being absolutely public, but I think that is a tougher sell to the EPs. Getting them to be open to all coaches would be an improvement from where we are.

I am mixed on the outside-consulting of judging. The main reason I would be for it is that good judges get far too little pay as-is. If supplementing their income keeps the strongest judges in the sport, then that may be a worthy trade-off, IMO. (It also gives the judges some real-world practice before big events.). There are far bigger conflict-of-interest situations happening in our sport, IMO.

I do not like hiding the scores until after Summit reveal. In fairness, I would abolish the Summit completely - at least in its current form - for many reasons.

I think your last statement is the driving factor behind every other issue currently facing the industry, I guess the same problems were still there, it has just been magnified by the summit and the associated bid chasing behaviors

 

[CGAcheer]

@BlueCat @tumbleyoda
with regards to code of points, scripting, cookie cutters and general scoring:

a system that rewards the skills performed instead of meeting a minimum threshold of certain skills would be better suited for having more inclusive teams where 75% of the team doesn't have to be able to throw this one specific skill, which would allow for larger team sizes.

That system would be based on a percentage of the team performing it- so that one stunt in the back of jumps or in the opening of a team of twenty would get the value of the skills x 20% vs the magical inclusion somewhere in routine comp or maybe adding to the difficulty or creativity

the system would also need to account for the possibility of new skills that don't currently exist. This can be solved by assigning value to the component skills and whether they are connected or combined- So a front handspring half up in level 5 is a 1/2 twist combined with a release and combined with an inversion- so you'd get the value of the 1/2 twist, the inversion, the release and the 2 combination bonus x percentage of the team number for each one of those skills performed.
Yes, I know that sounds excessively complicated- but I've made a spread sheet (see below) that you can enter the number of athletes into it and then enter how many of each skills was done (aided by the script) and it will do the math and give you the score for that category.

I would have max scores for each category that are purposely difficult to reach, for example the stunt category could be 35. You would have the choice on how best your team could approach that category. You could do 7 skills that are worth 5 points each or 35 1 point skills- one is easier and one takes way less time and most likely would score better on the routine and creative scores. The Time is an important factor, since it would be virtually impossible to max out all of the categories in your 2:30. That gives you the options to focus on your strengths and downplay your weaknesses. The concept of a cookie cutter routine would be gone given the plethora of different team make ups and strengths and strategies.

Whats to stop you from having one kid doing non stop back handsprings in one corner while a stunt is doing tick Tocks running man style in the other corner? Well that is where the routine comp, creativity and overall impression scores come into play.

I would have a stick to the script bonus to reward teams who followed their script.

I would also have deductions scaled to the percentage of the team as well. Having a 3rd of your stunts fall on a team of 12 or 36 should be weighted a little more evenly, not necessarily completely equal but more in that direction. Also with the change of the scoring system, a fall or error wouldn't take you completely out of a range which currently exists as a massive penalty

this system would eliminate the scoresheet based reasons to have 19 on a team instead of 22

If you're interested here is the spread sheet

I honestly haven't really looked at since I made it a few years ago, but the first page is the overall sheet with the totals and some instructions and the philosophy behind it. The following pages are for each category and you can change the green boxes to reflect your routine and it will give you a score. I'm sure by now the values for the skills would need to be adjusted since about half your team doing standing handsprings to double whip double would max you out as it currently stands

its 2/3 objective and black and white understandable, you do this your get this score, if you follow your script you know exactly what your difficulty score will be. There wouldn't even need to be difficulty based comments since you would already know exactly what you could do to increase your difficulty score.

It would be a big change to make, but would be a major step towards transparency, legitimacy and clarity

a separate concept that could be used in either system is a dial based judging system- The dial starts in the middle and you move it one direction for being below average and the other for being above average and the amount you move it determines the particular score - that puts the actual number out of the judges hand and everyone is automatically starting from the same baseline which would eliminate some bias within the more opinion based categories.

since I've already typed out a whole book anyway to solve the cheer world's problems-
Age Grid
Leave the age grid alone, and overlay an additional layer of Level based age bottoms. (along with some rule suggestions)
Level 1r - 4+ (no arching tumbling skills, all stunts below prep level)
Level 1 - 5+ (2 leg stunts may pass through extended level)
Level 2 - 6+
Level 3 - 7+
Level 4 - 8+
Level 5r - 9+
Level 5 - 10+
So that would work out to make Junior Level 5 10 to 14 year olds but Junior Level 3 7 to 14 year olds. It accounts for the actual safety of the skills being performed at certain ages that Debbie talks about, while still allowing gyms the ability to make the lower level teams the way they see fit. It also has the added side benefit of saying that you should spend at least a year on progressing through each level and dangles the carrot of moving up in skill level more so than just being old enough to be on an older team.

but then again, I'm also in favor of just leave stuff alone for a while so we can actually plan ahead, adjust and at least know what to expect for a few seasons. So if we got to change because thats just what we seem to always do- Leveled Age Grid, #of teams as the D1/D2 divider (decided and locked in for the season by November 1st) and Objective and Transparent Scoring. And ditch the summits so we can drive the price of participation back down some.

and as bonus I think I addressed a significant number of small gym concerns and large gym concerns without having to give them different rules - Larger team size incentive, but without penalizing teams for being small, age bottoms that address burnout and progressions while still allowing smaller gyms to make their teams, Self Selection while still having a set threshold and everyone would know what to do to get a better score

 

[BlueCat]

@CGAcheer. That is a bunch to absorb and look over.

In general, I don't think major age grid changes need to necessarily happen immediately. However, I don't see any reason not to discuss them and try to hash out the details - even if it isn't intended for the upcoming season. Everything USASF seems to happen last minute - why not come up with options for 2019-20 now? That being said, D1/D2 have been around in its basic form for a few years now and that coincides with a slowing of the sport's growth rate. (That slowing growth also matches up with the rise of Summit and a marked rise in event costs.) I get the correlation/causation difference and that you can't automatically tie those together. I believe it is worth considering at least that the current setup is not achieving its original stated goal of creating more growth.

 

[tojofasho]

I want to weigh in here, but I want to preface it with the fact that I coach high school cheer, not allstar, and that I participated in high school/college cheer, not allstar. I found out allstar existed in 2011 when I saw Lady Bullets' routine and have immersed myself in it ever since. So basically, I have only outside knowledge, absolutely no knowledge of what it's actually like coaching/competing in allstar except for what I've gleaned from friends who own gyms or compete. I'm also making a list because that's how I best process things.

The insane cost, especially with Summit, has skyrocketed and is driving away participation in allstar cheer. This is probably the most accurate thing I've seen, and is actually something I bring up every year at my parent meetings. When I pass out the cost sheet to parents before tryouts, many of them scoff at the $1000 price tag and compare it to other high school sports, claiming the costs are ridiculous and no other sport costs that much. Cue me rolling out the projector, throwing up the costs for a year of allstar cheer (cheapest in my area around $6000, most expensive around $12,000, not including parent travel), and suddenly that $1000 price tag doesn't seem so bad. Here in AZ cheerleaders have to pick between allstar and high school (you cannot do both), and the vast majority of them end up doing high school. After speaking with one of my parents (who had tried a short stint at AZ Element over the summer), she said that 95% of the reason she returned was cost related, and that many other parents she spoke with had been through similar experiences. So while I am selfishly thrilled that allstar is too expensive for most of my Title I parents to afford (and yes I know that makes me a terrible person), I also know it's bad for the sport as a whole.

Big name gyms have additional perks. I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that if you have a big name, you have a better shot at succeeding as a business, though the level of success is hotly debated. Most people have touched on a lot of different points ("curb appeal", so to speak, and judging being two of them that were hit the hardest), but the biggest advantage I truly believe these big names have is financial support. Top Gun recently bought out a gym near my house, and they've definitely pumped money into it to get additional equipment that wasn't present before the buyout. While I obviously don't know their finances, I'm fairly positive they were able to do this because, again, they had the huge name and financial backing of the main location. I just feel like people are overlooking how much of an impact money has - so while the satelite locations may not share athletes, they do still get a huge bump in success for this one reason. I think someone brought up the "education gap" on another thread here (low-income students tend to perform at a lower level than high-income students) and how it applies to each individual cheerleader and family, but it also applies to the gym as well. A gym with more money can have more equipment, and can thus be more safe and successful in their run.

Scoring is sneaky and bad and needs to be transparent. I don't have much to add except that yes, I agree wholeheartedly, and was very surprised to head (I think BlueCat brought it up) that coaches don't get a breakdown of every team in their division's scores after the competition? Varsity owns USA, which is the company my cheerleaders mostly compete for, and they've always been incredibly transparent about scoring after competitions to coaches (though not to the general public, which I think is fine). We get a breakdown of every team in our division, and each individual judge's scores for each category on the scoresheet. Do I sometimes disagree? Yes, but at least I get to see what parts of the scoresheet my team did the worst at, what they did the best at, and can make a plan of action from there.

So yeah that's my input. Keep in mind I am a total outsider to allstar cheer, so take all my opinions with a grain of salt, but I have no horse in this race, so to speak. I think a split for D1/D2 is important, but have no idea what would be the fairest way. So basically this is just a rambling post of opinions I developed reading through everything, do with it what you will!

 

[CLynn]

The insane cost, especially with Summit, has skyrocketed and is driving away participation in allstar cheer.

YES to all of this. There is also the insane cost of missing school! My daughter will have to drop all-star next year because she is almost failing algebra. Sorry but she can't keep missing class to drive to a cheer competition.. .hijack over...

 

[cheermomforever]

I want to weigh in here, but I want to preface it with the fact that I coach high school cheer, not allstar, and that I participated in high school/college cheer, not allstar. I found out allstar existed in 2011 when I saw Lady Bullets' routine and have immersed myself in it ever since. So basically, I have only outside knowledge, absolutely no knowledge of what it's actually like coaching/competing in allstar except for what I've gleaned from friends who own gyms or compete. I'm also making a list because that's how I best process things.

The insane cost, especially with Summit, has skyrocketed and is driving away participation in allstar cheer. This is probably the most accurate thing I've seen, and is actually something I bring up every year at my parent meetings. When I pass out the cost sheet to parents before tryouts, many of them scoff at the $1000 price tag and compare it to other high school sports, claiming the costs are ridiculous and no other sport costs that much. Cue me rolling out the projector, throwing up the costs for a year of allstar cheer (cheapest in my area around $6000, most expensive around $12,000, not including parent travel), and suddenly that $1000 price tag doesn't seem so bad. Here in AZ cheerleaders have to pick between allstar and high school (you cannot do both), and the vast majority of them end up doing high school. After speaking with one of my parents (who had tried a short stint at AZ Element over the summer), she said that 95% of the reason she returned was cost related, and that many other parents she spoke with had been through similar experiences. So while I am selfishly thrilled that allstar is too expensive for most of my Title I parents to afford (and yes I know that makes me a terrible person), I also know it's bad for the sport as a whole.

Big name gyms have additional perks. I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that if you have a big name, you have a better shot at succeeding as a business, though the level of success is hotly debated. Most people have touched on a lot of different points ("curb appeal", so to speak, and judging being two of them that were hit the hardest), but the biggest advantage I truly believe these big names have is financial support. Top Gun recently bought out a gym near my house, and they've definitely pumped money into it to get additional equipment that wasn't present before the buyout. While I obviously don't know their finances, I'm fairly positive they were able to do this because, again, they had the huge name and financial backing of the main location. I just feel like people are overlooking how much of an impact money has - so while the satelite locations may not share athletes, they do still get a huge bump in success for this one reason. I think someone brought up the "education gap" on another thread here (low-income students tend to perform at a lower level than high-income students) and how it applies to each individual cheerleader and family, but it also applies to the gym as well. A gym with more money can have more equipment, and can thus be more safe and successful in their run.

Scoring is sneaky and bad and needs to be transparent. I don't have much to add except that yes, I agree wholeheartedly, and was very surprised to head (I think BlueCat brought it up) that coaches don't get a breakdown of every team in their division's scores after the competition? Varsity owns USA, which is the company my cheerleaders mostly compete for, and they've always been incredibly transparent about scoring after competitions to coaches (though not to the general public, which I think is fine). We get a breakdown of every team in our division, and each individual judge's scores for each category on the scoresheet. Do I sometimes disagree? Yes, but at least I get to see what parts of the scoresheet my team did the worst at, what they did the best at, and can make a plan of action from there.

So yeah that's my input. Keep in mind I am a total outsider to allstar cheer, so take all my opinions with a grain of salt, but I have no horse in this race, so to speak. I think a split for D1/D2 is important, but have no idea what would be the fairest way. So basically this is just a rambling post of opinions I developed reading through everything, do with it what you will!

Yes yes and yes......well said! When we started it wasn't doing the a lot of 2 day comps, or having the STP, it wasn't the bling $$ bling of uniforms, no special practice gear every year, no special t-shirt or warm ups for big comps.....and no Summit or Worlds then. A lot more reasonable..... but thank god my Cp is older with less comps for her I5 team schedule! Prices are def out of control for AS!

 

[california cheer mom]

YES to all of this. There is also the insane cost of missing school! My daughter will have to drop all-star next year because she is almost failing algebra. Sorry but she can't keep missing class to drive to a cheer competition.. .hijack over...

I think this is so dependent upon where you live, but I am very thankful that our gym chooses competitions that are (for the most part) easily driveable. There are enough local comps this year for us to do 5 different 2 days comps within a 2 hour drive. Plus a bunch more 1 day comps (all Varsity). We won't need to get on a plane until Summit.

 

[Natalia5]

I disagree on not giving the scores out to the general public, I think they 100% should be just as gymnastics, ice skating and diving do. Yes the uninformed parents might not understand that a routine is not performed with the same execution and timing every time it is done and might not understand the variance in scores, but it is always better to be transparent with information with your fans and customers, it helps keep the appearance of a fair competition and that there is nothing to hide. That being said with Summit bids being 100% score based this year, I would propose that scores not be made public until the after the Summit reveal.

Some form of this ^^^ but instead of displaying the actual score and/or break down right a way; how about displaying a letter and/or grade like a grade school grid with each letter reflecting a score range. That way the team and/or spectators would at least know that their score is at least "XYZ" and save the detailed information for the individual teams and their coaches in real time.

 

[Hoosea]

I'm not opposed to the scores being absolutely public, but I think that is a tougher sell to the EPs. Getting them to be open to all coaches would be an improvement from where we are.

I am mixed on the outside-consulting of judging. The main reason I would be for it is that good judges get far too little pay as-is. If supplementing their income keeps the strongest judges in the sport, then that may be a worthy trade-off, IMO. (It also gives the judges some real-world practice before big events.). There are far bigger conflict-of-interest situations happening in our sport, IMO.

I do not like hiding the scores until after Summit reveal. In fairness, I would abolish the Summit completely - at least in its current form - for many reasons.

Our daughters have been in comp cheer for over 12 years. We went to the first Summit at which my husband said, “This will ruin the sport.” So sad and so true.

 

[ChicagoCheerDad]

I'm not opposed to the scores being absolutely public, but I think that is a tougher sell to the EPs. Getting them to be open to all coaches would be an improvement from where we are.

I am mixed on the outside-consulting of judging. The main reason I would be for it is that good judges get far too little pay as-is. If supplementing their income keeps the strongest judges in the sport, then that may be a worthy trade-off, IMO. (It also gives the judges some real-world practice before big events.). There are far bigger conflict-of-interest situations happening in our sport, IMO.

I do not like hiding the scores until after Summit reveal. In fairness, I would abolish the Summit completely - at least in its current form - for many reasons.

@BlueCat "I'm not opposed to the scores being absolutely public, but I think that is a tougher sell to the EPs."

I find this the most interesting line in this entire discussion, as I have had similar discussions with a major EP and was told that the gyms requested that scores no longer be made public, and that it had nothing to do with the EPs. I probably should have questioned that statement from the EP harder, but it was around fear of scores being used against gyms and to recruit athletes from lower or less scoring gyms.