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

[kristenthegreat]

Under the current system, there is an easy work-around. Either gym can just sign a release at any point.



Getting a new tax ID & name are not difficult. (CA Plano, CA Austin). To my knowledge, ownership isn't tracked by USASF.

Not every perceived problem can be solved by throwing new safety guidelines, rules, or age grid changes at it. I get the desire to "do something", but sometimes the right solution isn't always the most obvious one.

While the USASF overall is mostly well-intentioned, few would accuse it of being effective, efficient, or expeditious. The "solutions" we end up with are often less desirable than the "problems" they were intended to solve. (Example: athlete registration system.)

Or the travesty that were those new tumbling rules. I think we saw scarier tumbling in the newer system than we did with the old..

 

[CGAcheer]

At least with the new athlete registration and waiting a year, they have the opportunity to use actual stats to find where and if there is a clear divide between d1 and d2. Maybe 98% of the top 10-15 worlds placers have 175 or more total athletes, Maybe 90% of the top 5 teams come from gyms with multiple worlds teams. Who knows what will happen, personally I'm in favor of the idea if executed well, but at least they have the opportunity to use actual stats to make a decision. Or even better release the stats and put it to a vote

 

[kristenthegreat]

At least with the new athlete registration and waiting a year, they have the opportunity to use actual stats to find where and if there is a clear divide between d1 and d2. Maybe 98% of the top 10-15 worlds placers have 175 or more total athletes, Maybe 90% of the top 5 teams come from gyms with multiple worlds teams. Who knows what will happen, personally I'm in favor of the idea if executed well, but at least they have the opportunity to use actual stats to make a decision. Or even better release the stats and put it to a vote

Or, if they give us a general criteria (seeing as athletes/gyms now must register, we SHOULD know what gyms have how many worlds-eligible athletes), this year we could type the info in ourselves.

I'm also waiting for the numbers back from Andre (who is, I understand, very busy).

 

[BlueCat]

At least with the new athlete registration and waiting a year, they have the opportunity to use actual stats to find where and if there is a clear divide between d1 and d2. Maybe 98% of the top 10-15 worlds placers have 175 or more total athletes, Maybe 90% of the top 5 teams come from gyms with multiple worlds teams. Who knows what will happen, personally I'm in favor of the idea if executed well, but at least they have the opportunity to use actual stats to make a decision. Or even better release the stats and put it to a vote

You are trusting that:

1. They will get accurate, usable information from this system
2. They will be willing to release anything other than VERY vague meta-data to the public.
3. They will not cherry-pick the information released to fit a particular agenda.
4. Your (coaches') vote/opinion will be a part of the decision process.

 

[CGAcheer]

You are trusting that:

1. They will get accurate, usable information from this system
2. They will be willing to release anything other than VERY vague meta-data to the public.
3. They will not cherry-pick the information released to fit a particular agenda.
4. Your (coaches') vote/opinion will be a part of the decision process.

Hoping that they would use the opportunity, not really trusting that they would, but hoping that with stats available they would use them to inform the decision

 

[yojaehs]

On the multiple definition of multiple locations or under one gym. Declaration must occur at the beginning of the season and can't change within that season but can change year to year.


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

 

[just_kay_today]

The proposals surrounding this change have so much red tape and rules, it's beginning to sound almost like a government entitlement program...and you see how well those are administrated and respected. :banghead:

A jaded thought: Worlds is a money making enterprise. What incentive would the USASF have to exclude a smaller branch of a big name gym from DII; if including them might ensure that more tickets are sold to DII competition dates (Prelims, Semi-finals, finals)?

 

[p.o.k.]

Why would a smaller branch of any big name gym be considered d2? This is a recipe for abuse.

 

[BlueCat]

Why would a smaller branch of any big name gym be considered d2? This is a recipe for abuse.

That branch would be a small gym. Separate business legally, separate coaches, separate athletes, etc....

The proposals surrounding this change have so much red tape and rules, it's beginning to sound almost like a government entitlement program...and you see how well those are administrated and respected. :banghead:

Many ideas that sound great in theory don't work that well in practice. (example: mandatory athlete registration through USASF system)

 

[King]

That branch would be a small gym. Separate business legally, separate coaches, separate athletes, etc....



Many ideas that sound great in theory don't work that well in practice. (example: mandatory athlete registration through USASF system)

The question is, for athlete registration, is the idea flawed or is it execution?

 

[Mclovin]

That branch would be a small gym. Separate business legally, separate coaches, separate athletes, etc....



Many ideas that sound great in theory don't work that well in practice. (example: mandatory athlete registration through USASF system)

I have so much respect for you and how long you've been in this industry, but I am very confused on why you think athlete registration is not going to work...how can that possibly be a bad thing?

 

[King]

I have so much respect for you and how long you've been in this industry, but I am very confused on why you think athlete registration is not going to work...how can that possibly be a bad thing?

I refer to what I said earlier. I think he is more referring to the current execution, not the idea. (not trying to speak for him though)

 

[Mclovin]

I refer to what I said earlier. I think he is more referring to the current execution, not the idea. (not trying to speak for him though)

But we've got to start somewhere. Every new system has kinks that will have to be worked out. That's normal.

 

[King]

But we've got to start somewhere. Every new system has kinks that will have to be worked out. That's normal.

The age old argument: do we wait until its perfect or do we do something flawed first.

 

[Mclovin]

The age old argument: do we wait until its perfect or do we do something flawed first.

NOTHING is going to be perfect at first..I don't care how hard you TRY to make it perfect, there are going to be flaws. In my opinion what we take as flawed and turn into perfect is the definition of success to me.