All-Star Grand Unified Theory Of Cheerology

[socratesofcheer]

HECK NO! LOL! We dont qualify as a small gym, but for our area, we are a "small gym" We have 120 atheletes. This year I beleieve we only have 5 crossovers. 2 of them started on our Senior 1 and got BHSs so cross to our Senior 2, and they other 3 go from our Senior 4, to our Senior 3. At this point, we do have a few crossovers, but they are due to injuries, absenses, etc. If we couldnt have crossovers, our teams would be less competitive.

I understand how it affects YOUR competitiveness, but, is it good for the entire industry?

 

[Ashley]

Oh, and to finish my thoughts above. In know that on the USASF website there was something about a "rec" division.

http://usasf.net/programs/rec/

The idea of having rec teams compete in their own division is a good one, because again, it ensures that teams are competing against "like" teams. And there are plenty of other reason to have rec teams (way to get kids involved in the sport with the high financial commitment of cheer, acts as a feeder program to all-star teams, etc.) that go beyond competitive balance.

Many competitions have rec divisions - like YMCA type teams. They're just not part of USASF.

 

[Rudags]

I understand how it affects YOUR competitiveness, but, is it good for the entire industry?

I would assume that SEVERAL other gyms are in our similar situation. I know quite a few gyms who are right around 100 or slightly above like we are. I dont see how having 2 or 3 crossovers on a team of 20 affects the industry? Also - Even at a LARGE program. If someone gets hurt the week of, or in the practice room - You shouldnt be allowed to put anyone else in?

 

[tumbleyoda]

Modification then: Crossovers can only go one level up or down. That make more sense?

I like that too but the only issue I have with that is I have had since 2004 several kids over the year jump 2 levels in tumbling from tryouts till say March. I may have 1 -2 competitions left and perhaps I could now use them on that 2 team above (from Level 2-4 is the usual jump). It might also give me a preview of how they might handle that level for upcoming year - kind of a pre-tryout. Limiting it to 1 level prevents that. That is why I suggested the 1 cross/any level the coach decided as long as it is age appropiate. We never know why a coach/gym crosses over its athletes and this does not force them to defend their internal policies. What it does do is shrink the abuse of the crossover rule.

 

[Rudags]

Modification then: Crossovers can only go one level up or down. That make more sense?

I am 100% for this rule!

 

[Rudags]

I like that too but the only issue I have with that is I have had since 2004 several kids over the year jump 2 levels in tumbling from tryouts till say March. I may have 1 -2 competitions left and perhaps I could now use them on that 2 team above. It might also give me a preview of how they might handle that level for upcoming year - kind of a pre-tryout. Limiting it to 1 level prevents that. that is why I suggested the 1 cross/any level the coach decided as long as it is age appropiate. We never know why a caoch/gym crosses over its athletes and this does not force them to defend their internal policies. What it does do is shrink the abuse of the crossover rule.

I think we could ALL sit down and talk about exceptions to the rules. But we have found out the hard way htat jumping that fast didnt work in the situation we were in. We have a Senior 2 last year who just out of nowhere thru a standing back tuck out of nowhere. She got put on level 4 this year, and guess what - Since she skipped level 3, she cant fly for anything. If we could go back, we would have put her on level 3 to get the trumbling and flying progression mastered. At least we found this mistake out early in our gyms career.

Im sure there are some success stopries in letting people hop up two levels, but in my experience, I wouldnt do that again. I would then say that I agree with the only crossingover one level up or down and I woudl argue that there shouldnt be an arguement to that. I am interested in others opinions - As if SEVERAL people disagree with me, I am open to change my opinion about this...

 

[King]

the spirit of the rule, in my definition, is to help teams with a last minute injury OR fill in one little hole on a team.

now, because there is nothing in writing against doing it, i have no problem with gyms building entire teams and programs doing it from a legal standpoint. but i don tthink it represents solid growth.

so finding the right balance of 'you can do these few things' without being able to frankenstein a team just cause is the solution.

 

[BSS2000]

Number 5 might work if we didn't have so many coaches that acted like children when it comes to kids switching programs.

 

[newcheerdad]

Many competitions have rec divisions - like YMCA type teams. They're just not part of USASF.

Interesting! I don't think I've ever been to a competition that had one.

 

[cheerinfo]

Modification then: Crossovers can only go one level up or down. That make more sense?

DISLIKE.

 

[King]

DISLIKE.

oh grr.

 

[cheerinfo]

oh grr.

I do NOT like level crossing. I just don't agree with it. Unless an injury happens THAT day, with proof, and all teams in that division and the event producer approve it. Otherwise, stay within your own level. That is my firm belief. So grrrrrr right back at you mister!!!

 

[Rudags]

Number 5 might work if we didn't have so many coaches that acted like children when it comes to kids switching programs.

Can you further explain your opinion on this statement?

 

[tumbleyoda]

I think we could ALL sit down and talk about exceptions to the rules. But we have found out the hard way htat jumping that fast didnt work in the situation we were in. We have a Senior 2 last year who just out of nowhere thru a standing back tuck out of nowhere. She got put on level 4 this year, and guess what - Since she skipped level 3, she cant fly for anything. If we could go back, we would have put her on level 3 to get the trumbling and flying progression mastered. At least we found this mistake out early in our gyms career.

Im sure there are some success stopries in letting people hop up two levels, but in my experience, I wouldnt do that again. I would then say that I agree with the only crossingover one level up or down and I woudl argue that there shouldnt be an arguement to that. I am interested in others opinions - As if SEVERAL people disagree with me, I am open to change my opinion about this...

There is a difference in jumping fast and planned progress. Different gyms/programs/coaches build athletes different ways. I am very different from most tumble coaches because I plan for the progression of the whole athlete - mind , body, spirit, attitude, and skill not just the one skill she/he needs to make the team she wants to be on. In the scenario I put out as one I have used in the past it was for the last competition of the year type of thing - almost like an exhibition. I am trying to look at the different ways that could be legitimate reasons instead of just my way - which would mean I would say 1 level only which I have said in the past or the simple they are just crossing over for easy wins argument.

 

[newcheerdad]

the spirit of the rule, in my definition, is to help teams with a last minute injury OR fill in one little hole on a team.

now, because there is nothing in writing against doing it, i have no problem with gyms building entire teams and programs doing it from a legal standpoint. but i don tthink it represents solid growth.

so finding the right balance of 'you can do these few things' without being able to frankenstein a team just cause is the solution.

In a perfect world, you'd credential an athlete at a certain level, and the athlete could only compete on teams at that level. So if you say Suzie's a level 4, the only division she could compete in would be any of the flavors of level 4.

Of course, in practice that would be difficult, because again, you might need to move an athlete up or down due to injury, defections, or even because that athlete has illustrated they belong on a different team. I don't think anyone really disputes the rationale for allowing crossovers.

So the question really is about what is the "fair" composition of a team. If a team is level 4, how many athletes on that team should be true level 4 cheerleaders? Is it 50%? 80%? 99%?

The other question is about what the "gap" is between teams that an athlete can crossover from. Is one level acceptable? Two? Is crossing over from level 5 to 3, for example, different from 3 to 1?

I think answering those two questions will help start to clarify what a true crossover rule would look like.