Division I And Division Ii At Worlds - Big Gym Separation

Discussion in 'Allstar Cheerleading' started by King, Jun 30, 2013.

  1. p.o.k.

    p.o.k. When all else fails.... I shimmy

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2009
    Messages:
    543
    Shimmys Received:
    851
    Location:
    California
    I am a(n)...:
    Parent
    Don't like the idea of setting aside bids in this instance just because a team is D2. That would mean they would have to declare before any competition and perhaps split the division too. Who is going to decide who is "legitimate" and who is not, elite and not, D1 and not - some suggesting it should be up to the gym to decide where they fall? Would this be the same secret mutual admiration society as in other instances? Shouldn't the performance on the day the bid is awarded determine who is going to get the bid - regardless? I am only talking about the divisions in question here. Yes some may argue that the paid bids are sometimes guaranteed to certain types of teams, but generally it is something like one all girl team and one coed, regardless of flavor. There are not many comps that are like NCA that have 8 to give out.


    According to many on this thread there are too many bids - getting an at large bid is not the question - regardless of the the size of the gym. This proposal is to make the playing field level at worlds so everyone at worlds can win a prize, or make finals, or feel good about themselves, or whatever other problem this may cure. It is a business the USASF is not going to lower the number of bids and I do not see them having a different comp at a different location perhaps on different weekend. If the number of bids stay the same yet there is another layer of cost you are just cutting into the profit - unless you raise your prices.
     
  2. tumbleyoda

    tumbleyoda Slow your roll, Sparkle.

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,971
    Shimmys Received:
    5,390
    I am a(n)...:
    Coach
    Ashley how many at large bids were there at the start of last season? How many bids ultimately did not get handed out? If at large bids "pay" for worlds then USASF/Varsity needs as many of those accepted as possible. Every bid not accepted is lost money. Again regardless to how much people say there are too many teams at Worlds, their current business model dictates that.

    Now here is another solution for those who don't like the D1 D2 possibility. Throw the whole daggone thing out. Serious. Take one year to restructure it in a manner that keeps out the small gyms/lesser known programs that you don't want to waste your time watching yet still give them hope that one day they can reach that level. Set up true regional play. Strengthen local comps. Bring back the IEP's with local comps. Allow smaller gyms to grow and stop beating them up for not going to Indy, CS, or NCA just to come in last place and get dogged out on the boards. Or for not having a level 5 team. Have the CL invitational type format for the off year. Then roll our a revamped Worlds out in one year.

    I would give them a year if they would fix the whole thing. Rather that than the band aid approach in years past. Although I don't think D1 D2 is a band aid. It is actually recognizing your market and making a necessary adjustment.

    Would it work? Yes. Are all of those businesses willing to lose money to implement something as radical as this? Doubt it. I wouldnt want to if in their position. And with what they have built the fans wouldn't want Worlds to ho away for a year either.

    Sent from my SCH-R530C using Fierce Board mobile app
     
  3. Ashley

    Ashley Administrator Staff Member National Champion

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,666
    Shimmys Received:
    9,246
    Web:
    I am a(n)...:
    Athlete
    Oh I agree, I don't like the idea of setting aside bids for each division. I just meant that these truly small gyms that can't get to worlds now, shouldn't be able to in DII either.

    By my count there were 261 AL bids to be given out. At the end of the year I had 209 teams with AL bids - others declined, upgraded etc. I don't know if all of those went to Worlds or not, but as far as I know, I don't think there's any events that just flat out didn't give out bids because they didn't have enough teams, or there were very few if so. I don't feel like digging in my database at the moment.
     
  4. newcheerdad

    newcheerdad Best Speechmaker '12

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,255
    Shimmys Received:
    2,369
    I am a(n)...:
    Parent
    I think there should be a Division 1 and Division 2, but Division 2 shouldn't go to Worlds. They can have their own end-of-the-year, Summit-like comp, but can only compete up to restricted 5.

    In my perfect world, Division 1 would be something earned, where only the top "x" gyms can compete Division 1 and everyone else competes Division 2. And it would be something that would have to be earned as a program - you couldn't just throw together one paid-for L5 team and compete Division 1 right away. You would have to show success as a program for multiple years in Division 2 before getting that opportunity.
     
  5. newcheerdad

    newcheerdad Best Speechmaker '12

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,255
    Shimmys Received:
    2,369
    I am a(n)...:
    Parent
    Bottom line - the real problem that this proposal is trying to address is the one I've been railing on forever, which is the increasing stratification of cheer into the haves and have-nots. And it has nothing to do with the size of the gym, it just has to do with the fact that there's probably 50-75 gyms that have teams that can legitimately compete for trophies at major comps.
    I'm not sure I love the proposal that's out there by the USASF, but at least I see it as an acknowledgement of one of the biggest issues in the sport.
     
  6. The Sixth

    The Sixth When all else fails.... I shimmy

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    585
    Shimmys Received:
    851
    I am a(n)...:
    Parent
    But that is more on the gym owners, because you have people who once cheered in some capacity, opening up their mom and pop gym, thinking they are qualified to develop a solid program. It's not the USASF's responsibility to fix it. They are just trying to capitalize on it's existence.

    The discussion has turned to athlete numbers. And I think many are in agreement, that small gyms put out just as good of athletes as large gyms, just not as many. So why not put more effort into improving the scoring and judging to better reflect the ratio of athletes to skills that is already in use? Taken directly from Worlds score sheets, ambiguous terms such as "few", "most", "approximately" don't help. With the exception of a team with a ridiculously low number of kids, if it's working properly, a small gym that can bring 16 solid athletes should be able to compete against a large gym with 20.

    We can also all agree, that there are MANY teams that don't belong at Worlds. It's NOT a numbers game, they simply have a sub-standard skill set and/or routine. All that happens by creating a 2nd, 3rd, etc., division is just saying your non-elite routine just has a better chance of placing by way of less competition. Simply adding a division for small gyms =/= making them better.
     
  7. p.o.k.

    p.o.k. When all else fails.... I shimmy

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2009
    Messages:
    543
    Shimmys Received:
    851
    Location:
    California
    I am a(n)...:
    Parent
    I understand this but what self appointed demi-god(s) gets to decide who is worthy? What criteria? You know darn well going to only big comps like NCA and getting top 5 means something different than go to smaller comp and getting first - even if the smaller comps are giving out bids. Depending on the geography many times a level 5 team competes at something like a "mini" worlds just to get a bid.
     
  8. tumbleyoda

    tumbleyoda Slow your roll, Sparkle.

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,971
    Shimmys Received:
    5,390
    I am a(n)...:
    Coach
    So again what is the issue of creating D2 and making their Worlds event Summit? Instead of numbers owners choose where they want to be by September? Then after a year look at the actual numbers and make a decision on numbers based on the actual attendance.

    Sent from my SCH-R530C using Fierce Board mobile app
     
  9. debesq97

    debesq97 Last Pass... on International Open 1

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2012
    Messages:
    168
    Shimmys Received:
    154
    I am a(n)...:
    Parent
    I'm anti-D2. Our gym has 1 small senior 5 team and I'd rather see that team rock the mat at Worlds against the big gyms and get 10th or 15th, even, than perform a less than stellar routine and get a D2 globe of some color or another because the D2 competition just wasn't as good. Small gym, medium gym, large gym...it's not about placement...it's about having a solid level 5 team, a solid level 5 routine and hitting it. Period.

    The one thing I will agree with, however, is the definition of "small gym"....I think 75 is too small. Gyms with 100-150 athletes have a difficult time fielding full level appropriate teams and wind up crossing over many athletes, which can take away from the crossover athletes time to further develop her true level appropriate skills and beyond. I think USASF or the EPs should increase that number...or limit crossovers at every event like they do at NCA so that teams are less inclined to compete a level up because they have 10 girls with tucks and can cross over another 10 to make a level 3 team, for example.
     
  10. NewbCoach

    NewbCoach They call me Susie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2013
    Messages:
    39
    Shimmys Received:
    70
    I am a(n)...:
    Coach
    Obviously not Troy, but why not let the gyms decide where they want to compete? Once registered in a division they compete against teams in that division in order to win bids, if they are not good enough to be there they will not get a bid. (of course this measn the current amount of bids would ahve to drop or be split between the two divisions to keep numbers somewhat like they are)

    In order to allow teams to move up and down then put a min time frame when they change division, say 3 years. Stops teams from moving up and down each year but allows for teams to grow or recognize that they need time to develop before trying D1 again.
     
  11. gymcatmomx2

    gymcatmomx2 When all else fails.... I shimmy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Messages:
    504
    Shimmys Received:
    874
    I am a(n)...:
    Parent
    I have read every post and while I can agree with a lot of the shared opinions I don't understand the ones that are opposed to it. My CP's high school won the Texas State 4A Division 1 football championship with approximately 2100 students. Another high school in Texas won the 5a Division 1 championship with approximately 6000 students. Did the fact that we were not in the largest division take away from our winning the state championship? Heck no! Could we realistically compete with a school that has 3x the amount of students? Heck no! And by the way, our girls soccer team took home a state championship as well, in the same division. And frankly, I have no idea who won it for the 5A division because I couldn't care less. We won state in our respective division - that's all that matters!
     
  12. Coach Troy

    Coach Troy When all else fails.... I shimmy

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    466
    Shimmys Received:
    847
    Location:
    Laguna Hills California
    I am a(n)...:
    Gym Owner
    We all know you're against it, but if you had to designate teams as DI or DII how would you do it?[/quote]



    Just to clarify I HATE the idea...and its not a proposal this is what we will be stuck with...

    But I'll play the game....
    I would designate the Competitions into DivI and DivII based off of the level 5 teams represented and bids earned at the competitions qualify you into DI or DII

    Example......
    Division I 75-100 level 5 teams represented
    NCA, Jamfest Super Nationals, CheerSport, Spirit Sports, UCA

    Division II less then 75 teams represented
    USA, PacWest, Spirit Celebration, Battle at the Capitol, CheerTech, etc.
     
  13. yojaehs

    yojaehs Slow your roll, Sparkle.

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,190
    Shimmys Received:
    4,243
    I am a(n)...:
    Coach
    Verified Member:
    Shea Crawford
    Florida Wildcat Tumbling Director
    Not a fan of the idea at all. Gyms are currently able to choose their competition schedule and no one is dying you HAVE to attend Worlds! Why do things need I change? Attendance is doing just fine, LEAVE IT ALONE!!!

    I know many will assume "easy to say bc you're at Brandon". Brief history lesson, 2 years in a row we received bids and chose not to attend because we didn't feel we were ready. The wait paid off.


    The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!
     
  14. RockstarCheer

    RockstarCheer When all else fails.... I shimmy

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    619
    Shimmys Received:
    952
    Location:
    Greenville, SC
    Web:
    Twitter:
    Rockstar_Cheer
    I am a(n)...:
    Gym Owner
    Verified Member:
    Scott Foster
    Owner of Rockstar Cheer
    I have a question that maybe someone with time on their hands could answer..

    Look at the Worlds medals winners (Top 3) from this year 2013. How many of those top 3 programs from the US have under 200 athletes in their program?


    The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!
     
  15. AndrewSky

    AndrewSky Slow your roll, Sparkle.

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,783
    Shimmys Received:
    10,300
    Location:
    Nashville
    I am a(n)...:
    Retired From Cheer
    Not sure about exact numbers, someone feel free to clarify, only two that come to mind are Macs And Stealth.
    Both may be over... But close to that number.