All-Star Large Senior And Worlds! If Only 3 Teams In The Division....

[Cheerfan1234]

Clearly I'm just misinterpreting the tone of that last sentence. You're usually so nice. It's very easy to have an opinon on this matter when A.) You don't coach an all-star team or B.) The USASF's decision won't impact your team that consisently places in the top three. I was posing the "take only three to finals" as a hypothetical scenario that I find ineffective as well.

Actually my gym has made it to the top ten as well as the top twenty and has more of a chance nowadays to make it to the top ten than in any other season, but I guess we'll see how the season goes.

I'm upset about only taking ten teams to finals because of how many teams are allowed to be there in the first place. If only 20 of the best Small Senior teams were invited to Worlds and 10 were taken to finals then it wouldn't be as huge of a deal regardless of whether or not my team's name was called or not. I don't think it's right to cut 85% of a divison in one day. That many teams should just NOT be there to begin with...that is not the sign of a prestigious event.

That being said, I do value the prestige of a top ten finish in Small Senior where 70 teams have to battle it out...and I'm going to guess that the majority of coaches and cheerleaders in this division do as well. There have been a few occasions when my team was 11th and 12th in prelims and had the chance to get that top ten finish in finals, and I'd like to continue to have that chance just like a 3rd place team in prelims wants to have the chance to fight for gold in finals.

I don't get why you are taking it from everyone to the top 3. There have been plenty of times when the top team has fallen to a different position and someone in a different position has moved into top 3. In no sport would you go from every competitor to awarding the top 3 spots. There needs to be a round with fewer teams and more than just 3. Otherwise why would we have finals. Make it a 1 day competition.

Clearly you are upset by the top 10 suggestion because your gym hasn't made it to the top 10 but has made it to top 20.

 

[imrichhowboutu]

Clearly I'm just misinterpreting the tone of that last sentence. You're usually so nice. It's very easy to have an opinon on this matter when A.) You don't coach an all-star team or B.) The USASF's decision won't impact your team that consisently places in the top three. I was posing the "take only three to finals" as a hypothetical scenario that I find ineffective as well.

Actually my gym has made it to the top ten as well as the top twenty and has more of a chance nowadays to make it to the top ten than in any other season, but I guess we'll see how the season goes.

I'm upset about only taking ten teams to finals because of how many teams are allowed to be there in the first place. If only 20 of the best Small Senior teams were invited to Worlds and 10 were taken to finals then it wouldn't be as huge of a deal regardless of whether or not my team's name was called or not. I don't think it's right to cut 85% of a divison in one day. That many teams should just NOT be there to begin with...that is not the sign of a prestigious event.

That being said, I do value the prestige of a top ten finish in Small Senior where 70 teams have to battle it out...and I'm going to guess that the majority of coaches and cheerleaders in this division do as well. There have been a few occasions when my team was 11th and 12th in prelims and had the chance to get that top ten finish in finals, and I'd like to continue to have that chance just like a 3rd place team in prelims wants to have the chance to fight for gold in finals.

I don't think they would use the Top 10 as a replacement for Semi-Finals and Finals. I would think they would be keeping Prelims as is, then have the top 10 prelim teams move in with the Paid bid teams in semi-finals, then take the top 10 there. This way they would only be going from 30-45 to 10

 

[Underestimated]

UGHHHHH WHAT THE CRAP PANTHERS NEED TO ENTER LRG SO THERES MORE COMPETITION UGHHH!!! C'MON PANTHERS DONT GO MED! GO LARRRGE!!!!

STAHHS
F5
SR.ELITE
PANTHERS

DONE DEAL.. I COULD LIVE WITH THESE TEAMS COMPETING FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE!

 

[canttouchthis]

yes, remember panthers have also played in this game (as well as a few others historically)

oh yeah i forget
!

 

[worldsring09]

I took consistency to mean throughout the season. IMO, change/evolution is good for the sport. Change about the current year (or season) during the middle of it, not so good. Reminds me of the drama last year regarding releases.

 

[Cheerfan1234]

I took consistency to mean throughout the season. IMO, change/evolution is good for the sport. Change about the current year (or season) during the middle of it, not so good. Reminds me of the drama last year regarding releases.

You're so right....there always seems to be a change that occurs during the current season, or some important tidbit of information that a select group of people know about, and even this select group "heard from such and such coach" who was part of "such and such conference call" or something along those lines.

I do believe that change is necessary for the sport. I also believe that huge changes should be made definite and made clear to all coaches and program owners earlier than August when we're practically three months into the season, we're starting to create our routines around a scoresheet, and we're finalizing comp schedules.

 

[SmileyRyleigh]

sorry guys, im really confused right now... but did they just add a medium division? or has it always been there and i just never noticed? :help:

 

[yooolizzi]

sorry guys, im really confused right now... but did they just add a medium division? or has it always been there and i just never noticed? :help:

:cow:

 

[cheerinfo]

sorry guys, im really confused right now... but did they just add a medium division? or has it always been there and i just never noticed? :help:

In case this is a real question and not someone just trying to be silly...yes, they added it this year. Most likely in anticipation that large will be basically obsolete (as appears to be evidenced by the lack of teams in that division for this season). I cannot remember what month, but Les did announce that it would be a Worlds division this season. Many teams that had traditionally competed large in years past are in this division as well as many newbies. Looks like it will be a great division.

 

[BlueCat]

It blows my mind that wiping out a staggering 90% of the largest and most intense division in one fell swoop is something that is even up for debate.

​

That is not up for debate. No one has seriously put forth a suggestion which would eliminate anywhere near that percentage in any single round. In highly-populated divisions, there would be 3 rounds, like last year. Assuming 70 in a division, you would average cutting 30 after each of the first 2 rounds. That is either 50%-ish (give or take) in one fell swoop or 85%-ish in two fell swoops.
​

The majority of the teams that make the finals DESERVE to be there and STILL don't take home a globe or even make the top ten.

​

Around 63% of last year's finalists finished in the top 10 of their division. This suggestion would up that to 100%.
​

A better solution? Fix the ridiculous way the random selection of the paid bid winners' order performance was organized this past year. If you want to place the best teams accurately, put the paid bids together at the end of the divison and pick THEIR order randomly. Don't have one paid winner perform at 12:30 in the afternoon and another perorm at 9:30 at night.

​

Stacking the paid bids at the end effectively punishes the at large bids. (Somewhat more likely to be from underdog/smaller gyms.) If the judges believe that a large number of the strongest teams have yet to perform, they are forced to keep scores low for the teams that are early in the division. If the judges think that some of the early teams could be among the strongest teams in the division, then that opens up early teams to getting high scores.

It has been my contention that getting a paid bid is advantage enough in and of itself. Once you arrive at the event, I feel that every team should be treated equally. Putting all of the paids at the end gives those teams too much advantage, IMO.
​

Pocketing the cash of 70+ teams and THEN telling 60+ 0f them "Better luck next year" is not only insulting but also nothing short of highway robbery. I'm sorry but the whole "you're not gonna win so what's the point of competing twice?" mentality is a bit harsh.

​

Again, no one is suggesting that the majority of teams only perform once. In the club divisions, at least half of teams would likely still perform at least twice.
​

Top ten in practically every division at Worlds no big deal, but it is a HUGE accomplishment in Small Senior and more than ten teams should have the opportunity to make it there

​

Assuming no ties, 10 teams are going to finish in the top 10 regardless of how many rounds it takes to get to that point. Whether you take the top 10 scores from round 2 or round 3 to determine who is "top 10" doesn't affect how many teams get to go home with that accomplishment. It also doesn't affect who realistically has a chance of getting to that point. The same 15-20 teams with a realistic shot at that goal will all have their fair shot to achieve that during their round 2 performance.
​

If finals is just about who's gonna win, then heck, let's just scrap the whole medaling format altogether. Second and third place is no more a win than 1oth place or 15th place. There's only one winner, so take the top two teams from prelims in EVERY division and have them battle it out for the top spot in finals like they do in the superbowl, world series, and every other sport. Would that be fair? To me that's just as crazy as wiping out 90% of a division.

​

Both of those suggestions (eliminating either 90% or "all but 2" in any single round) sound crazy. That is probably why they aren't doing that.
​

If worlds is about determining who the best teams are, then 70 teams shouldn't be invited, plain and simple. Better yet, why are more than 5 teams in ANY division even invited when we can pretty much predict year after year who will take home the globes, give or take a team or two?

​

I don't agree that our choices should be limited to letting 20 teams in finals or only inviting 5 teams in the first place. Worlds overall should be a balance between giving teams an opportunity to perform on the "big stage" and being a crucible for determining who will be left standing with globes. The proposed system allows half or so teams to perform at least twice, which already stretches the venue to it's capacity.
​

When you are from Cheer Athletics, Stingray Allstars or any other big-name gym with multiple Worlds globes, it easy to have a nonchalant attitude about only taking 10 of 70 teams to finals because you've won this division more than once.

​

I care very much about Worlds and the teams that are there. Everyone has their own perspective, I suppose. Perhaps a team that often finishes towards the top cares more about their athletes having enough mat time to warmup safely than whether a coach of team number 20 in their division can write "Worlds finalist coach" on their resume instead of "Worlds top 20 coach".​

Regardless, I would think that a coach of team in the top 10-20 suggesting that teams 31-70 don't even deserve to be at Worlds is much more "nonchalant" or harsh than saying that round 3 should be limited to 10 teams.​

There is something to be said about making it to the top ten if the USASF actually makes such a huge deal about it in the 40+team divisions.

​

Making the top 10 IS a big deal. So much so that they should all be awarded a spot in finals.​

If the USASF continues to allow 70 teams to come to Worlds but only allow ten to compete twice

​

Again, that is not the suggestion. Most teams would likely perform twice. There would still be 3 rounds.​

How about we only take the three highest scores from prelims in EVERY division to finals and have them battle it out for the medals. I'm guessing no one would like the thought of that

​

That is similar to what they have done in the international divisions, and no, many people do not like that. That is why many, myself included, are on record as being opposed to that. 10 is a more realistic, fair compromise which is why that has been suggested.​

 

[imrichhowboutu]

Perfectly said @BlueCat !

 

[Rudags]

Are we forgetting this is a competitive sport? Not everyone needs to win. Not everyone needs to be in finals. Not everyone needs to go to worlds. This is a competition. Quit whining about all of this. I miss the days when the division was "coed" or "allgirl" End of story.

 

[Cheerfan1234]

Regardless, I would think that a coach of team in the top 10-20 suggesting that teams 31-70 don't even deserve to be at Worlds is much more "nonchalant" or harsh than saying that round 3 should be limited to 10 teams.​

I completely respect your perspective and your stature in this industry, but I happen to hold a different opinion and that's okay. You wrote in an earlier post that Worlds should be the one competition where the best of the best are crowned...You are right...but then you seemingly contradict yourself by calling me harsh for suggesting that a huge portion of the 70 small senior teams should not be there in the first place. There are not 70 Worlds-calibur small senior teams in this country...that's a fact. There are probably not 30 Worlds-calibur small senior teams in this country. I do believe EVERYONE deserves the right to have the Worlds experience, but I guess paired with that belief is the realization that Worlds loses its prestige and grandeur as a result. On the other hand, if you limit the amount of bids awrded, then you deny many teams the opportunity to have this wonderful experience. I guess you can't have it both ways and please everyone. It's a tough situation.​

That being said, I am still against taking only ten teams to finals. I do believe my team has the potential to be one of those ten, but being in a situation where we've been 10th, 11th and 12th in prelims, you want to have one more chance to make it to the top ten, just like a 3rd place team in large senior wants the opportunity to fight for gold in finals (ex. Shooting Stars in '09). If only two teams were taken to finals that year, they would have went home empty handed instead of capturing a third world title. That probably would not have sat well with the boss lady.​

It may sound warped, but just making it to the top ten (for some teams..maybe not Orange, Cali, Panthers, etc.) is almost as much of an accomplishment as medaling in Large Senior. And just like you need more than three teams in finals to make it interesting for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, you need more than ten teams in finals to make it interesting for a top ten finish...You don't agree, but at least hopefully you can see where I'm coming from.​

I guess this wouldn't bother me so much if we weren't all left wondering whether or not this is really happening or if it's just speculation. If it is fact, then it's a shame that it's August and we're still left scratching our heads.​

 

[Rudags]

My goals as a coach vary year to year. Two years ago - My goal was to get a Worlds bid and attend Worlds with my 1st year Level 5 team. My second year, my goal was to make finals (which later became Top 10, long story short, we were in 12th going into Finals, and had a horrible finals performance, but 10th was definatley in reach potentially had we not had mishaps). Anyway, long story short - Small Limited seemed to be a pretty easy division two years ago (I say easy, but I mean easier then this past year). Last year when I realized who was entering our division, I had my work cut out. I was coaching a second year Worlds team and we wanted to go big. I researched EVERY, and I mean EVERY team in our division. I research EVERY, and I mean EVERY scoresheet for where we went. I constantly thought about changes, or what would be cleaner. I lived, breathed, and put everything into my team. I looked what was hot for this year. I looked what we had to do to hang. I worked VERY hard inside and outside of the gym as a coach. I did free stunt lessons with the groups. I came in early, I scheduled extra practices that I might not have been paid for. My motivation was to reach my goal. If everyone made it into finals - The goal would be a lot less meaningful. To be honest, I dont care how many teams make it into finals, as long as the teams that dont deserve to be in finals are weeded out prior. I am leaning towards liking 10 teams in finals because that 10 is a HUGE deal. And you know what? I would work my butt off to get my team in there some day. Im not saying other coaches dont work as hard as I do, but what I am saying is that to be what I consider to be the best - I want to be a part of it and will work hard to get there.... some day. I could totally be misunderstanding your posts, but I do feel some teams just feel like they 'deserve' to be in finals and dont want the number to be at 10. People should take Top 10 as a motivation. I know I do. And here I am again, having to start all over with a first year team, at a first year gym, trying to make another splash. My goal? To make Semi-Finals and Top 20 in whatever division we choose to enter.

 

[BlueCat]

I completely respect your perspective and your stature in this industry, but I happen to hold a different opinion and that's okay. You wrote in an earlier post that Worlds should be the one competition where the best of the best are crowned...You are right...but then you seemingly contradict yourself by calling me harsh for suggesting that a huge portion of the 70 small senior teams should not be there in the first place. There are not 70 Worlds-calibur small senior teams in this country...that's a fact. There are probably not 30 Worlds-calibur small senior teams in this country. I do believe EVERYONE deserves the right to have the Worlds experience, but I guess paired with that belief is the realization that Worlds loses its prestige and grandeur as a result. On the other hand, if you limit the amount of bids awrded, then you deny many teams the opportunity to have this wonderful experience. I guess you can't have it both ways and please everyone. It's a tough situation.​

That being said, I am still against taking only ten teams to finals. I do believe my team has the potential to be one of those ten, but being in a situation where we've been 10th, 11th and 12th in prelims, you want to have one more chance to make it to the top ten, just like a 3rd place team in large senior wants the opportunity to fight for gold in finals (ex. Shooting Stars in '09). If only two teams were taken to finals that year, they would have went home empty handed instead of capturing a third world title. That probably would not have sat well with the boss lady.​

It may sound warped, but just making it to the top ten (for some teams..maybe not Orange, Cali, Panthers, etc.) is almost as much of an accomplishment as medaling in Large Senior. And just like you need more than three teams in finals to make it interesting for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, you need more than ten teams in finals to make it interesting for a top ten finish...You don't agree, but at least hopefully you can see where I'm coming from.​

I guess this wouldn't bother me so much if we weren't all left wondering whether or not this is really happening or if it's just speculation. If it is fact, then it's a shame that it's August and we're still left scratching our heads.​

I do see where you are coming from. My general perspective is that I'm OK with the theory of a lot of teams attending, as long as the primary focus of the competition setup is to accurately pick which team deserves to be the eventual World Champion (and, to a slightly lesser extent, which teams deserve to medal.)

The main need I see for limiting the number of teams in finals to a smaller number than it has been in the past is not a theoretical one, but rather a logistics one. Given the limitations of the venue (don't get me started), fewer finalists could potentially mean that every finalist got to perform in the Field House, athletes could actually be allowed to sit and watch other teams, and perhaps most importantly, they could increase the amount of warmup time for teams. I also think that there are diminishing returns on the quality of judging as you start to get past 10 teams.

As far as being frustrated with not knowing details of Worlds & scoresheets until well into the season - I hear you. I share that frustration with nearly every coach with teams potentially going to Worlds. When it comes to issues with Worlds, I basically get in line with everyone else to wait and see what the decisions will be. Given the potential conflict of interest, I do not have any more say in those details than the average coach. Those are decided by the Worlds committee, of which I am not a member.