All-Star Division I And Division Ii At Worlds - Big Gym Separation

[blunchin]

I love this idea! That would be awesome information to have.

Regarding your comment about being able to choose divisions, size options, etc....Sure a small gym can choose to compete in a small division, but so can mega gym with 600 athletes. I posted on Twitter that personally what I would love to see happen, is rather than make a Division 1 and 2, make gyms enter a division based on the size of their gym. Something like this:

Gym size = 1-150 athletes = 20 on team (small)
Gym size = 151-350 = 30 on team (medium)
Gym size = 351 + = 36 on team (large)

I could care less what the actual cut off numbers are, but something along those lines. And I'm not just talking about worlds divisions, I'm talking every level, every age, across the board. I know coming from a gym with 150-200 athletes and often times struggling to even fill a team of 20 without using crossovers, it's frustrating to watch gyms with hundreds of athletes compete not only in the small division, but at NCA, they drop to the 19 & under division. I will never cry foul on this because I teach my athletes that regardless of size, it's what you do on the floor that wins or loses the game. But behind closed doors, it does frustrate me.

i think basing the size of your teams based off the number of athletes in your facility is over-simplifying a complicated process. i know at our gym specifically we had to make 2 small teams in one level and if we didn't, we would have had a large team with over 40 people on it and kids without a specific team placement. i'm sure it has been done in the past where mega gyms have gone under 20 for a win, but others simply don't want to fill the team with athletes without the proper skill set. there are just so many factors that determine your divisions and team sizes that basing it off merely the amount of athletes you have sometimes does not work.

 

[Ashley]

Email me and let me know what you'd want and I'll see if I can get it.

[email protected]

Now that the USASF is making everyone register with them regardless of level, I'd LOVE to see them release the data. Remove identifying information, but it would be awesome to be able to crunch that data.

 

[5-6-7-8]

I get your overall opinion, but to that one point - most "mega" gyms have multiple Worlds teams. A small-ish gym may have to put their best 20 out of 75, but the ratio is about the same at our gym. Last year, I think we had about 200 athletes out of 750 that were on Worlds teams.

I only know from my own experiences, so I will comment based on that, but I would love to hear from others, as I am definitely interested in learning from others outside what I see personally.

I can't see too many gyms of 75 being able to put a full 20 level 5 athletes on the floor. (I'm sure there are some, but I have to imagine they are the exception.) My experiences have been more along the lines of a gym of 125 maybe having 12-14 true level 5 athletes. Unfortunately, that isn't enough to be competitive at level 5 as is, so a few level 4 athletes are added to create a full team to "keep" the level 5 athletes. With big / mega gym nearby, those level 5 athletes typically leave. So the talent pool big/mega is pulling from is most likely more heavily weighted with higher level athletes, which enables big/mega to have multiple Worlds teams and/or younger level 5 teams.

If this trend continues, we are left with basically "big/mega" gyms, smaller gyms becoming "feeder" gyms, and true small gyms (with no big/mega nearby.) Having a 2nd division basically gives the both the small gyms and the "feeder" gyms and avenue to compete nationally. Yes, the Summit sort of addresses this issue (as does maybe level 5R), but I would still love to see D2 (or whatever it ends up being called) at Worlds. I do believe it could help out international programs as well if they wanted to compete in the non-international divisions.

 

[Mclovin]

i think basing the size of your teams based off the number of athletes in your facility is over-simplifying a complicated process. i know at our gym specifically we had to make 2 small teams in one level and if we didn't, we would have had a large team with over 40 people on it and kids without a specific team placement. i'm sure it has been done in the past where mega gyms have gone under 20 for a win, but others simply don't want to fill the team with athletes without the proper skill set. there are just so many factors that determine your divisions and team sizes that basing it off merely the amount of athletes you have sometimes does not work.

I get that. But as is with any set of "rules" every gym would learn to adjust and make due. I would rather see us make adjustments in that regard, than to watch gyms create 30 small teams instead of 15 large ones when their direct competitors struggle to make one team in any respective division.

Basically I'm just trying to reiterate my opinion that making a small gym compete against a large gym is not a fair playing field. I would really love to see the data on size of programs vs. teams that make top 10 at worlds. I bet there's not a single gym under 150 athletes that's made top 10, ever. If there has been, it's been a rarity. If I'm wrong, I'll shut my mouth and eat crow.

 

[Deleted member 15]

Now that the USASF is making everyone register with them regardless of level, I'd LOVE to see them release the data. Remove identifying information, but it would be awesome to be able to crunch that data.

Specifically what data?

 

[Ashley]

Specifically what data?

I don't know, number of athletes at a gym. Maybe split by levels if they have it.


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

 

[Deleted member 15]

I don't know, number of athletes at a gym. Maybe split by levels if they have it.


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

Email me when you know.

 

[Cheeranswers]

so out of curiosity, i tried my best to find out numbers of the top 10 in small and medium (based on their website/number of teams etc.). if we used the number 150 to define a small gym, medium all girl DII winners from 2013 would have been all star one big bang who came 13th. medium coed winners would have been American Cheer Flyers (if they're under 150, couldnt find a number). small all girl would have been GBE lime (if they are still under 150) and small coed would be hot cheer (they're super close to 150 but not sure if they have surpassed it). In some divisions I dont feel it would make a huge difference, but in others like medium all girl it would have had a huge difference at worlds 2013. I really still dont like this idea cause i feel like its trying so hard to make everyone a winner.. everyone makes the argument that it wouldnt take away meaning but i know personally i would rather place 3rd in a non separated division than higher in a division not against all the amazing big name teams. just my opinion. it just doesnt seem logical to have teams that didnt even place top 10 be crowned world champions. again, just my opinion, please dont be offended!

Also, feel absolutely free to correct any of this, it was extremely hard to get numbers for gyms!

 

[BlueCat]

Variables:

A. Size of gym
B. Success level at Worlds
C. Athlete Talent
D. Influx of new athletes from other gyms
E. Gym Longevity
F. Coaching Ability

Showing that A & B tend to both be high or both be low (direct correlation) does not necessarily show that A causes B. It may certainly be a factor, but B could also affect A - or other factors impact both. Experience tells me that all of these factors (and more) affect each other in multiple ways. I'm not sure how you would separate the data to fairly test cause/effect for any particular 2 factors.

 

[kristenthegreat]

I just sent a numbers request- I know a lot might be difficult (and I may need to source some info from here) but I feel like this is an avenue worth investigating. Will graph it once I sort through it all!

 

[AndrewSky]

I get that. But as is with any set of "rules" every gym would learn to adjust and make due. I would rather see us make adjustments in that regard, than to watch gyms create 30 small teams instead of 15 large ones when their direct competitors struggle to make one team in any respective division.

Basically I'm just trying to reiterate my opinion that making a small gym compete against a large gym is not a fair playing field. I would really love to see the data on size of programs vs. teams that make top 10 at worlds. I bet there's not a single gym under 150 athletes that's made top 10, ever. If there has been, it's been a rarity. If I'm wrong, I'll shut my mouth and eat crow.

To play

so out of curiosity, i tried my best to find out numbers of the top 10 in small and medium (based on their website/number of teams etc.). if we used the number 150 to define a small gym, medium all girl DII winners from 2013 would have been all star one big bang who came 13th. medium coed winners would have been American Cheer Flyers (if they're under 150, couldnt find a number). small all girl would have been GBE lime (if they are still under 150) and small coed would be hot cheer (they're super close to 150 but not sure if they have surpassed it). In some divisions I dont feel it would make a huge difference, but in others like medium all girl it would have had a huge difference at worlds 2013. I really still dont like this idea cause i feel like its trying so hard to make everyone a winner.. everyone makes the argument that it wouldnt take away meaning but i know personally i would rather place 3rd in a non separated division than higher in a division not against all the amazing big name teams. just my opinion. it just doesnt seem logical to have teams that didnt even place top 10 be crowned world champions. again, just my opinion, please dont be offended!

Also, feel absolutely free to correct any of this, it was extremely hard to get numbers for gyms!

GBE came 6th, Champion came fifth, they're a small gym.
Quite a few small coed teams in finals this past worlds were smaller/lesser known programs.

 

[Cheeranswers]

To play

GBE came 6th, Champion came fifth, they're a small gym.
Quite a few small coed teams in finals this past worlds were smaller/lesser known programs.

it depends what they'll consider "small"

 

[BlueCat]

If you are going to test if gym size is correlated to results, don't just use "Big" or "Small" as your values for gym size - use actual estimates of enrollment numbers if that is available.

 

[kristenthegreat]

If you are going to test if gym size is correlated to results, don't just use "Big" or "Small" as your values for gym size - use actual estimates of enrollment numbers if that is available.

That's what I'm looking for. Numbers I asked Andre about were (for small sen/coed and Medium coed):
Total enrollments of gyms at worlds (if available).
Total Worlds level athletes at gym (who competed at worlds, I might just try to guesstimate those numbers myself)
A point spread from prelims and semis.

All from 2010-2013. I left out Medium all girl because it hasn't been around long enough to really get a feel for how that division will play out. I'm looking to see where the bunches are: how many gyms have X and under athletes, Y and under, etc. See where sizes vs placements fit. Graphs, charts, the works.

 

[BlueCat]

All from 2010-2013. I left out Medium all girl because it hasn't been around long enough to really get a feel for how that division will play out. I'm looking to see where the bunches are: how many gyms have X and under athletes, Y and under, etc. See where sizes vs placements fit. Graphs, charts, the works.

I would suggest including it all to avoid selection bias.