All-Star D2 Summit Rule Changes

[cheer25mom]

And I DO think it's paranoia on my part...at least partially. I think that paranoia is fed by the lack of transparency by EPs.

I don't think its Paranoia I think its reality. I was at a varsity owned event that changed the way it was awarding bids to give a certain team who was NOT the highest scoring eligible team a bid to summit. The EP awarded bids everywhere else to the highest scoring team within an age division regardless of level, but at this comp the highest scoring team within the highest level competed got the bid. This team had no competition, won their division by default, and got the bid over several higher scoring senior teams. Legal, yes... ethical, I don't think so.

 

[Andrea]

I believe this is probably true...or at least implied. But, are there actually rules that say an athlete cannot compete for two gyms? I know they cannot compete for two gyms at the same event, but are there rules that prohibit an athlete from being registered at two gyms? I'm not suggesting any teams did this sort of thing, but I don't think it is prohibited. Obviously a gym would need to remain under 125 to maintain D2 status...even with an additional athlete from another program.

Somewhat related...Our gym, for one competition, had teams going for d1 AND D2 bids. I was curious if you could crossover from D1 Summit to D2 (regardless of the complications, I was just curious) and I never saw a rule prohibiting it.

You're right. I can't find anything explicitly written about the rules for those types of situations. Ours was a similar experience at a couple competitions, our main gym (over 125 athletes) went for D1 bids and the satellite gyms went for D2 bids. Our smaller locations went to UCA instead, so crossovers between D1 and D2 didn't come up for our gym.

 

[Nikki Moore]

Let me ask you this, how many D2 sized gyms won D1 summit before the split?

Our gym didn't win but they did get 3rd at Summit a few years back before D2 which was a huge deal for us.
As far as competing with the big guys - our first comp this season, I think Stingrays brought almost every team they had from their Marietta location - so it was almost impossible for anyone else to win. It was fun watching them though
After that, we really only saw them at Cheersport and maybe their smaller locations at some others (who did in fact get D2 bids)

When CP was just starting she did two years of prep and I had never even heard of StringRays. The first time I saw them was at a All-Star Prep comp and their prep teams were winning almost everything. The only other big gym I knew about at the time was the Atlanta Jayhawks since we did stunt clinics there for Rec cheer.

 

[amy1k]

Even if you cannot be dual-rostered, there isn't anything that prohibits a gym to register an athlete at the end of the season to their smaller location. ..or an athlete to be registered at ANY other gym. Even mid season, you could move from gym to gym without any issue (outside of Worlds athletes).

Eta: I'm not necessarily against this...I do like the new rules limiting replacements for Summit teams, though. I've said before that most of my experience is in baseball...where dual rostering and "guest players" are usual and accepted things.

 

[randomactsofcheer]

Even if you cannot be dual-rostered, there isn't anything that prohibits a gym to register an athlete at the end of the season to their smaller location. ..or an athlete to be registered at ANY other gym. Even mid season, you could move from gym to gym without any issue (outside of Worlds athletes).

Eta: I'm not necessarily against this...I do like the new rules limiting replacements for Summit teams, though. I've said before that most of my experience is in baseball...where dual rostering and "guest players" are usual and accepted things.

There is a rule that you can only compete for one gym AT Summit. But there are no rules regarding this at regular season competitions. I think the roster rule will help, but without asking athletes to check-in with picture ID's before they hit the floor at Summit, this is going to be a very difficult rule to enforce.

I agree with what @MissCongeniality is saying about leveling or evening the playing field for a large end-of-season competition. To me, the hundreds of "National" competitions held thought the year are a joke. The Summit can (and perhaps should) be the end-all, grand event where gyms large and small head-to-head against each other. However, small gyms have a much harder time actually getting to the Summit than large gyms. And that is where the problem lies.

I propose one Summit. In order to receive a bid to the Summit, you must abide by the same rules at the bid event that you have to follow at the Summit. If you don't follow those rules, you are not eligible for a Summit bid. That is what I consider an even playing field. Everyone competes at Summit with (close to) the same team that won the bid. No more stacking teams to win a bid. No more dismantling teams and putting them back together again to win at Summit.

 

[5-6-7-8]

Instead of D2 Summit, what about adding a size category? So a new "small" team would have 12 or fewer, medium would be 24 or fewer and large 32. (Just random #s…I am sure there are probably better places to divide.) And maybe only "D2" gyms could field a team in that "small" category.

Just adding thoughts to the discussion, as I really have no monkey in this circus.

 

[BlueCat]

Instead of D2 Summit, what about adding a size category? So a new "small" team would have 12 or fewer, medium would be 24 or fewer and large 32. (Just random #s…I am sure there are probably better places to divide.) And maybe only "D2" gyms could field a team in that "small" category.

Just adding thoughts to the discussion, as I really have no monkey in this circus.

The venue isn't capable of holding more teams. Splitting the event into different weekends and/or locations basically allows twice as many teams to participate.

 

[5-6-7-8]

The venue isn't capable of holding more teams. Splitting the event into different weekends and/or locations basically allows twice as many teams to participate.

I agree, I should have elaborated that in my head, I would keep the overall number of participants the same (so yes, there wouldn't be a second money making weekend.)

Or create some "regional" play in competitions.