All-Star International Coed 5/all-girl 5 Thoughts

[King]

Thank You King.

What... no shimmy?

 

[Ignis Pater]

What... no shimmy?

Yeah. Emily has it. She wanted to record me. I said no way that would end up going viral and I have enough fans already.

 

[travnation80]

I do think paid bids should only go to club level teams. The whole industry is built on the back of club level teams, so club level teams should be rewarded. If international disappeared tomorrow there will be little consequence, but if club were to disappear so would all of allstar cheer. I say this as a coach of an international 6 team. Paid bids are there for club level teams.

As for LESS teams going to worlds (aka making the event more prestigious) I think it is a double edged sword. What makes worlds so amazing is the ridiculous amount of teams there. After 90% of those teams are done (the ones just happy to be competing there) they turn around and sit in the stands and become the most crazed fervent fans you can imagine. They fill the air with a sense of importance and excitement that can't be described. If we lower the teams we lose that. BUT with so many teams it is harder to be accurately judged.

I don't think there should be 'international' divisions. It is either club or open. Open is 18+ and allows college level kids. Club is 12-18 and no kids who can cheer in college are allowed. You are either a club athlete or an open level athlete, age wise there would be a cutoff where you switch from one to the other.

There should not be just top 3 from a country. That doesn't make sense. If you want the sport to grow, dont restrict talent. If a country wants to send one representative to a division that only has one US team... well isn't that what the ICU is for?

Last, IOC 5 should have normal balanced scoresheets that look like either large all girl or unlimited coed depending. IOC 6 can have the over emphasis on building skills because amazing building is highlighted in 6.

I agree with some of your statements, not all of them. I have so much respect for the fact that you actually have a structured opinion. Most don't. So you got a SHIMMY

 

[BlueCat]

My feeling is that the "international" age group is experiencing far and away the most growth of any age bracket in our sport. I think that eliminating it would damage a lot of gyms financially. Maybe "open" teams in the past have been loss-leaders at best for many gyms, but that is no longer the case. Many gyms, our included, depend on those teams to help support the business. There are many divisions that could be eliminated without damaging the overall financial picture - the "international" divisions are not one of them. Getting rid of the "international" divisions make little sense to me at this point.

As far as event producers being prohibited from granting paid bids to the "international" age group, I don't think that would be fair either. Those athletes have arguably "paid their dues" more than any other athletes in our sport. They potentially have been paying entry fees to those event producers for over a decade. Saying that they deserve those bids less than a different age bracket simply because they don't fit into some gyms' business model is a little crazy.

Also, they pay just as much for their entry fees as a "senior" team does. They also often have the least amount of available funds to get to Worlds any other way.

 

[King]

My feeling is that the "international" age group is experiencing far and away the most growth of any age bracket in our sport. I think that eliminating it would damage a lot of gyms financially. Maybe "open" teams in the past have been loss-leaders at best for many gyms, but that is no longer the case. Many gyms, our included, depend on those teams to help support the business. There are many divisions that could be eliminated without damaging the overall financial picture - the "international" divisions are not one of them. Getting rid of the "international" divisions make little sense to me at this point.

As far as event producers being prohibited from granting paid bids to the "international" age group, I don't think that would be fair either. Those athletes have arguably "paid their dues" more than any other athletes in our sport. They potentially have been paying entry fees to those event producers for over a decade. Saying that they deserve those bids less than a different age bracket simply because they don't fit into some gyms' business model is a little crazy.

Also, they pay just as much for their entry fees as a "senior" team does. They also often have the least amount of available funds to get to Worlds any other way.

Interesting way to look at it. While there has been a lot of growth in these divisions, that does not mean that a majority of the money comes from them. If there was only one team in IOC5 last year, and now there are 4 that is 400% growth! But then mini level 1 has a 5% loss this year... going from 20 teams to 19. Mini Level 1 still made the money. In fact I bet if we were to look at the pyramid of cheerleading we would see the base is still levels 1 - 3 supporting our level 4's and 5's (and maybe even 6's).

Is international (a stupid name, lets all agree. club is not restricted to just US teams) a new way for teams to make money? Of course. Am I against gyms using these teams to make money? No. Do I think international should go away? No, it should just be made smarter.

Also, I do not think in any sport someone who pays their dues is entitled to anything.

You are only as good as your last win. You are only as prepared as your last practice. You are only talented as your work ethic today.

My favorite saying (in the Georgia Tech locker room): Today my competition got stronger, faster, smarter, and better. How about you?

 

[Ignis Pater]

Using Fire as an example, everyone on that team has aged out. There are NO high school age kids on the team. This, IMO, is the way it should be. Some programs, I am speculating here, may not have enough kids for a pure L5 and create a IOL5. May be they have to much and have to make another team to keep the extra L5 kids happy. Either way, as an old school parent I am not a fan of it. TOO many divisions.

Also, I know some competitions give a reduced rate on entry fees to L6 teams. I don't know about the IOL5 teams but I would be willing to bet it happens.

 

[King]

Using Fire as an example, everyone on that team has aged out. There are NO high school age kids on the team. This, IMO, is the way it should be. Some programs, I am speculating here, may not have enough kids for a pure L5 and create a IOL5. May be they have to much and have to make another team to keep the extra L5 kids happy. Either way, as an old school parent I am not a fan of it. TOO many divisions.

Also, I know some competitions give a reduced rate on entry fees to L6 teams. I don't know about the IOL5 teams but I would be willing to bet it happens.

I agree. I LOVE ioc5 and think its a great way for athletes who have aged out of club teams to still compete and use their skills. But the scoresheet for IOC 5 and the 14+ just is not the right mix to me.

For instance, I could take 8 beefy boys, 8 sub 100 pound 14 year olds and dominate this division. Not a single team in this division hits the Worlds scoresheet well (ATM of course). All things staying the same for a few years (does that ever happen in cheer?) that is what the Worlds winner will look like. Nary a double full tumbler in site or a college age flyer.

 

[BSS2000]

As far as event producers being prohibited from granting paid bids to the "international" age group, I don't think that would be fair either. Those athletes have arguably "paid their dues" more than any other athletes in our sport. They potentially have been paying entry fees to those event producers for over a decade. Saying that they deserve those bids less than a different age bracket simply because they don't fit into some gyms' business model is a little crazy.

exactly

If a company wants to give an international team a paid bid knowing the probability of that team actually making it to finals, then let them. At any rate, if the international team got a bid with money, didn't make finals, and the money was basically wasted, that team still earned that chance. If you want to take away money from the international teams, you might as well kill the division altogether because it will certainly die, most of these young athletes can't afford worlds on top of gym and competition fees for the year.

 

[BlueCat]

I was not suggesting that IO 5 teams are "owed" anything. However, if one suggests that they should be restricted from getting paid bids because they aren't currently making some gyms money, then I am just pointing out that those athletes have, in most cases, done their fair share of contributing to the financial state of the sport over their careers.

I would also agree that generally the L1-3 support the industry a great deal more than L4-6. However, if we are talking about L5-6 specifically, then IO5 and IOC5 are among the largest "elite" divisions. Here are the numbers of teams from NCA 2010 in the "true" L5-6 divisions:

International Open - 8
International Open Coed - 8
Large Junior - 3
Large Junior Coed - 2
Large Senior - 5
Large Limited - 7
Senior Semi-Limited - 2
Senior Unlimited - 5
Small Junior - 5
Small Junior C0ed - 6
Small Senior - 22
Small Limited Coed - 19
Youth - 4
Open 6 - 2
Open Coed 6 - 2

Those numbers don't suggest that IO5 and IOC5 represent a tiny segment of the elite team market that should be eliminated. In fact, you could make a case for eliminating many other divisions before you got anywhere near International 5.

For reference, here are the senior open numbers, which I did not include above:
Large Senior Open - 6
Small Senior Open - 9
Small Senior Open Coed - 7

 

[King]

exactly

If a company wants to give an international team a paid bid knowing the probability of that team actually making it to finals, then let them. At any rate, if the international team got a bid with money, didn't make finals, and the money was basically wasted, that team still earned that chance. If you want to take away money from the international teams, you might as well kill the division altogether because it will certainly die, most of these young athletes can't afford worlds on top of gym and competition fees for the year.

before last year they had always had to afford it before.

 

[Ignis Pater]

I remember sitting in the arena at NCA this past February and watching SOT IOC L5. They were amazing. I really enjoy watching this level of talent, just as I enjoy the L6 teams. I guess I am trying to say, treat them the same. No one under the age of 18 and must be out of high school. As a side note I HATE the super senior rule. The only difference between IO/C L5 and L6 should be the skill level. My daughter is a senior this year so I am done after worlds. If she wants to come back and be on a IO L5 or a L6 team then she can raise the money. She can get one of those job things. May be I just see this through the Stingray view.

 

[King]

I was not suggesting that IO 5 teams are "owed" anything. However, if one suggests that they should be restricted from getting paid bids because they aren't currently making some gyms money, then I am just pointing out that those athletes have, in most cases, done their fair share of contributing to the financial state of the sport over their careers.

I would also agree that generally the L1-3 support the industry a great deal more than L4-6. However, if we are talking about L5-6 specifically, then IO5 and IOC5 are among the largest "elite" divisions. Here are the numbers of teams from NCA 2010 in the "true" L5-6 divisions:

International Open - 8
International Open Coed - 8
Large Junior - 3
Large Junior Coed - 2
Large Senior - 5
Large Limited - 7
Senior Semi-Limited - 2
Senior Unlimited - 5
Small Junior - 5
Small Junior C0ed - 6
Small Senior - 22
Small Limited Coed - 19
Youth - 4
Open 6 - 2
Open Coed 6 - 2

Those numbers don't suggest that IO5 and IOC5 represent a tiny segment of the elite team market that should be eliminated. In fact, you could make a case for eliminating many other divisions before you got anywhere near International 5.

For reference, here are the senior open numbers, which I did not include above:
Large Senior Open - 6
Small Senior Open - 9
Small Senior Open Coed - 7

The reason behind the number of teams participating in IOC 5 is because divisions available to 17+ is limited to 4. The divisions available to those in the 12-18 age range are 12. (including juniors AND open 5).

So, get rid of unlimited and medium (combine), make large 30 (like we have suggested) and youll see comparable numbers.

Put another way if you give 100 people 100 choices of ice cream then I would imagine chocolate or vanilla would be the most popular with 15 or so people choosing it. But if you give 100 people only a choice of chocolate or vanilla than at least one of those choices is gonna have 50 or more. It is all about the choices available.

 

[BlueCat]

The reason behind the number of teams participating in IOC 5 is because divisions available to 17+ is limited to 4. The divisions available to those in the 12-18 age range are 12. (including juniors AND open 5).

So, get rid of unlimited and medium (combine), make large 30 (like we have suggested) and youll see comparable numbers.

Put another way if you give 100 people 100 choices of ice cream then I would imagine chocolate or vanilla would be the most popular with 15 or so people choosing it. But if you give 100 people only a choice of chocolate or vanilla than at least one of those choices is gonna have 50 or more. It is all about the choices available.

Yes, ice cream shops could only sell two flavors and that would probably increase their sales of those particular 2 flavors. However, their overall sales would likely go down. Maybe someone would buy chocolate instead of their favorite Rocky Road. However, some may just decide to go next door to the soda shop if they can't get the flavor they want. The goal should be to get the most total people buying ice cream.

If the ice cream shop wanted to reduce the number of flavors, they wouldn't start by eliminating the current #3 and #4 most popular ones, they would start with the ones that hardly anyone buys already. They certainly wouldn't try to force all of their customers that USED to buy the #3 and #4 flavors into buying the 2 least popular ones.

 

[King]

Yes, ice cream shops could only sell two flavors and that would probably increase their sales of those particular 2 flavors. However, their overall sales would likely go down. Maybe someone would buy chocolate instead of their favorite Rocky Road. However, some may just decide to go next door to the soda shop if they can't get the flavor they want. The goal should be to get the most total people buying ice cream.

If the ice cream shop wanted to reduce the number of flavors, they wouldn't start by eliminating the current #3 and #4 most popular ones, they would start with the ones that hardly anyone buys already. They certainly wouldn't try to force all of their customers that USED to buy the #3 and #4 flavors into buying the 2 least popular ones.

Understandable.

There were 20 teams in the International Open Divisions.

There were 98 in age eligible worlds divisions ( I included Open 5 as they could make the jump to a worlds divison and get a bid if desired and junior teams as I have taken a junior team to worlds in a senior division, Id even cut off 10 teams worth of kids because of age being too young).

Which ice cream shop to serve Worlds bids would you rather open: An international one or club one?

 

[Ignis Pater]

Now this discussion is making me hungry.

I think something left out here is, some programs do not charge any fees to the athletes of IO/C L5 teams. That is what I am getting at. Some programs have an international teams as there flag ship team. In the middle some where is what I don't like about this division. It is not the teams themselves or their performance. It is the division as a whole. I only care about the big 4 divisions. Sr sm, Sr lg, Sr coed (4 boys), and lg coed. Old school.