All-Star New Basket Rules For College Cheer Are Making A Lot Of People Angry...

[OldskoolKYcheercoach]

but think of how many skills are thrown not in competitions.... that's a whole lotta unsafe to wait to correct at a yearly comp that not everyone attends



like when they took away flipping and twisting skills on certain surfaces a few years ago? or when they limited the number of tricks allowed in baskets? this isn't a surprise change in rules for many people. baskets have been on the way out, writing has been on the wall

This, this, and more this. This thread has done a lot to prove to me how little people pay attention to the trends in rules over time.

 

[OldskoolKYcheercoach]

Saw a tweet from Morehead State's coach yesterday that his all girl athletes are excited about being able to focus on stunting and pyramids more. Not everyone is "angry" about this.

 

[SparkleSpankies]

Saw a tweet from Morehead State's coach yesterday that his all girl athletes are excited about being able to focus on stunting and pyramids more. Not everyone is "angry" about this.

I'm sure this is actually not bothering most that it actually affects. I fully understand that the how/when it was presented did cause some negative feelings, and in a way I also have a few thoughts, some pro this and a select 1-2 against, but the pressure is being taken off.

 

[Lower Level Queen]

I have no clue how this would actually work, it's just an idea and feel free to tell me this would be impossible but: what if there was some sort of requirement or judging that would put teams into certain difficulty categories? Each year the teams could reapply (or they could be required to do so, idk) and get into a higher division. That way teams with the abilities could continue their elite skills, but teams that are being pushed too far now have the restrictions in place they need.

ETA: I think someone else said something similar to this, sorry

 

[OldskoolKYcheercoach]

I have no clue how this would actually work, it's just an idea and feel free to tell me this would be impossible but: what if there was some sort of requirement or judging that would put teams into certain difficulty categories? Each year the teams could reapply (or they could be required to do so, idk) and get into a higher division. That way teams with the abilities could continue their elite skills, but teams that are being pushed too far now have the restrictions in place they need.

ETA: I think someone else said something similar to this, sorry

I'm going to bite on this. I think the concept is intriguing, but the logistics would make it highly unlikely.

I see three ways of accomplishing what you suggest, and they each come with their own set of difficulties.

SKILLS TAPING

This was actually done in the past. @ScottyB may be one of the few people who is regularly posting here who has participated, though I haven't decided if he's that old. Anyone who has actually done skills taping for college nationals would tell you that it was days, weeks and sometimes a month of pure hell. Coaches would shoot and re-shoot the same skills over and over until they were absolutely perfect in an attempt to get a paid bid to college nationals. Most of the teams could not consistently perform the skills they were being asked to perform, but they could managed to get one or two "sellable" takes on the video. I feel that if doing this in order to be placed into levels as you suggest, the same thing would occur. I can hear coaches now saying: "we're GOING TO GET LEVEL 5 THIS YEAR!" while having their team go for take 472 of whatever skill of which they were working to get a great video. Prior to doing away with this completely, UCA had already put a shorter time limit on the tapes, and limited teams to just shooting skills with the number of people who were allowed to be on the floor (it had become common practice to throw 6 or 7 baskets and do 3 or 4 pyramids for teams with huge talent pools). I will admit that I miss being able to hit Youtube on the day after the deadline and watching some of these.

PRE-COMPETITION PLACEMENT

This would almost invariably require teams to have someone come out to their practice area for a few days, watch them work on skills and make an assessment. I think the logistics of having this done would be a nightmare. I also think that if you did this too early in the season, you'd probably lose some of them before they ever really got started. If the idea is to promote participation, then you don't want to shoot them out of the sky just after takeoff. If you did it too late in the season, you might have months of the coach doing a "live assessment" version of the multiple takes for skills taping.

AT COMPETITION PLACEMENT

I can't imagine being a coach, showing up to competition, and then finding out what division I would be competing in. I've seen some coaches have high speed comeaparts over whether a tumbling mishap was a "Minor" or "major" infraction. The difference is 0.25....which is a difference maker at times, but come on, you already admitted she didn't finish the skill. If you're not clean, you didn't earn it. Anything they give you at that point is a gift. I can only imagine the backlash of a team performing and then being placed in a division lower or higher than the coach wanted them to be in, causing them to do well in a division that he/she views as being inferior or do very poorly in a more elite division. It also takes away from the strategizing. Even at high school nationals, where teams bounce from division to division yearly based on participation numbers. I spent time this morning discussing with our choreographer the risks/benefits of medium versus large varsity. Having that information in mind as we go into choreography in a few weeks allows us to not only emphasize the skills on the team; but do so in a way specific to what is typical of those two divisions and the amount of time we have.

 

[Ems]

I'm sure this is actually not bothering most that it actually affects. I fully understand that the how/when it was presented did cause some negative feelings, and in a way I also have a few thoughts, some pro this and a select 1-2 against, but the pressure is being taken off.

The more I think about it, the more I do agree with this. I do think some of the pressure is being taken off.

My biggest issue is still the difference between genders. Like I mentioned earlier, I do realize men are generally stronger than women, but as a 5’10” former backspot, it is a bit insulting.

How do people think this is going to effect ICU Worlds? Are the competition rules going to stay the same or reflect this rule change? More curiously, how is this going to affect STUNT? I wonder if the routine will include full and double full baskets as they have in the past. But since lots of STUNT teams are really the school cheerleaders, how does that work if a full basket is in the routine? Practice the baskets but you can’t do them where people can see? And if they’re not in the routines but their reasoning for taking them out was to align with game day skills but the point of STUNT meant to be a competitive sport? It gets messy quick.

 

[OldskoolKYcheercoach]

The more I think about it, the more I do agree with this. I do think some of the pressure is being taken off.

My biggest issue is still the difference between genders. Like I mentioned earlier, I do realize men are generally stronger than women, but as a 5’10” former backspot, it is a bit insulting.

How do people think this is going to effect ICU Worlds? Are the competition rules going to stay the same or reflect this rule change? More curiously, how is this going to affect STUNT? I wonder if the routine will include full and double full baskets as they have in the past. But since lots of STUNT teams are really the school cheerleaders, how does that work if a full basket is in the routine? Practice the baskets but you can’t do them where people can see? And if they’re not in the routines but their reasoning for taking them out was to align with game day skills but the point of STUNT meant to be a competitive sport? It gets messy quick.

STUNT is all-girl, and the same folks who brought you STUNT, are bring you these rule changes. I'm sure it will be reflected in the routines for next year.

 

[retiredl5cheer]

I'm going to bite on this. I think the concept is intriguing, but the logistics would make it highly unlikely.

I see three ways of accomplishing what you suggest, and they each come with their own set of difficulties.

SKILLS TAPING

This was actually done in the past. @ScottyB may be one of the few people who is regularly posting here who has participated, though I haven't decided if he's that old. Anyone who has actually done skills taping for college nationals would tell you that it was days, weeks and sometimes a month of pure hell. Coaches would shoot and re-shoot the same skills over and over until they were absolutely perfect in an attempt to get a paid bid to college nationals. Most of the teams could not consistently perform the skills they were being asked to perform, but they could managed to get one or two "sellable" takes on the video. I feel that if doing this in order to be placed into levels as you suggest, the same thing would occur. I can hear coaches now saying: "we're GOING TO GET LEVEL 5 THIS YEAR!" while having their team go for take 472 of whatever skill of which they were working to get a great video. Prior to doing away with this completely, UCA had already put a shorter time limit on the tapes, and limited teams to just shooting skills with the number of people who were allowed to be on the floor (it had become common practice to throw 6 or 7 baskets and do 3 or 4 pyramids for teams with huge talent pools). I will admit that I miss being able to hit Youtube on the day after the deadline and watching some of these.

PRE-COMPETITION PLACEMENT

This would almost invariably require teams to have someone come out to their practice area for a few days, watch them work on skills and make an assessment. I think the logistics of having this done would be a nightmare. I also think that if you did this too early in the season, you'd probably lose some of them before they ever really got started. If the idea is to promote participation, then you don't want to shoot them out of the sky just after takeoff. If you did it too late in the season, you might have months of the coach doing a "live assessment" version of the multiple takes for skills taping.

AT COMPETITION PLACEMENT

I can't imagine being a coach, showing up to competition, and then finding out what division I would be competing in. I've seen some coaches have high speed comeaparts over whether a tumbling mishap was a "Minor" or "major" infraction. The difference is 0.25....which is a difference maker at times, but come on, you already admitted she didn't finish the skill. If you're not clean, you didn't earn it. Anything they give you at that point is a gift. I can only imagine the backlash of a team performing and then being placed in a division lower or higher than the coach wanted them to be in, causing them to do well in a division that he/she views as being inferior or do very poorly in a more elite division. It also takes away from the strategizing. Even at high school nationals, where teams bounce from division to division yearly based on participation numbers. I spent time this morning discussing with our choreographer the risks/benefits of medium versus large varsity. Having that information in mind as we go into choreography in a few weeks allows us to not only emphasize the skills on the team; but do so in a way specific to what is typical of those two divisions and the amount of time we have.

Skills taping was The. Worst. Ever. -_- I veto it, and I also think it's a very bad representation of what a team can actually do.

 

[OldskoolKYcheercoach]

Skills taping was The. Worst. Ever. -_- I veto it, and I also think it's a very bad representation of what a team can actually do.

my point, exactly

 

[SparkleSpankies]

The more I think about it, the more I do agree with this. I do think some of the pressure is being taken off.

My biggest issue is still the difference between genders. Like I mentioned earlier, I do realize men are generally stronger than women, but as a 5’10” former backspot, it is a bit insulting.

YES YES YES about Gender.. that is the biggest issue I have.

 

[SparkleSpankies]

Skills taping was The. Worst. Ever. -_- I veto it, and I also think it's a very bad representation of what a team can actually do.

OMG I do not miss those days... as an athlete or a coach..

 

[retiredl5cheer]

OMG I do not miss those days... as an athlete or a coach..

I only had to do it one year (they did away with it after 2011) and it still haunts me, LOL.

 

[OldskoolKYcheercoach]

My biggest issue is still the difference between genders. Like I mentioned earlier, I do realize men are generally stronger than women, but as a 5’10” former backspot, it is a bit insulting.

I'm going to come at this one just to see your response.

If you played softball would you be insulted at the idea of wearing a face mask as a pitcher because the male baseball pitchers aren't required to wear one?

Both rules are in place to ensure the safety of athletes

Both rules are different based on gender

Softball players played for years without a facemask before someone decided that it needed to be a requirement. In Kentucky, they've made an even newer requirement that corner infielders must do the same.

The implication could be made that male baseball players are not required to wear the face mask because they are athletically developed enough to protect themselves from a hard hit line drive back up the box while the females are not.

Yet, I don't hear any softball players complaining about being insulted by being told to put on a face mask. They apparently value their health and well-being over their pride. In fact, before the rule about corner infielders was put in place for the 2018-2019 season, the corner infielders at the high school where I work voluntarily chose to wear them. This came about because an infielder in Kentucky this year was almost killed. She was a varsity-level athlete on a competitive team. She had been well-trained to make that play. Is that what it's going to take in cheerleading for athletes to start accepting rules? Do we have to wait for UK, Morehead, U of L, Oklahoma State, etc has a near-death experience before we decide...maybe this isn't a good idea?

 

[ScottyB]

I'm going to bite on this. I think the concept is intriguing, but the logistics would make it highly unlikely.

I see three ways of accomplishing what you suggest, and they each come with their own set of difficulties.

SKILLS TAPING

This was actually done in the past. @ScottyB may be one of the few people who is regularly posting here who has participated, though I haven't decided if he's that old. Anyone who has actually done skills taping for college nationals would tell you that it was days, weeks and sometimes a month of pure hell. Coaches would shoot and re-shoot the same skills over and over until they were absolutely perfect in an attempt to get a paid bid to college nationals. Most of the teams could not consistently perform the skills they were being asked to perform, but they could managed to get one or two "sellable" takes on the video. I feel that if doing this in order to be placed into levels as you suggest, the same thing would occur. I can hear coaches now saying: "we're GOING TO GET LEVEL 5 THIS YEAR!" while having their team go for take 472 of whatever skill of which they were working to get a great video. Prior to doing away with this completely, UCA had already put a shorter time limit on the tapes, and limited teams to just shooting skills with the number of people who were allowed to be on the floor (it had become common practice to throw 6 or 7 baskets and do 3 or 4 pyramids for teams with huge talent pools). I will admit that I miss being able to hit Youtube on the day after the deadline and watching some of these.

PRE-COMPETITION PLACEMENT

This would almost invariably require teams to have someone come out to their practice area for a few days, watch them work on skills and make an assessment. I think the logistics of having this done would be a nightmare. I also think that if you did this too early in the season, you'd probably lose some of them before they ever really got started. If the idea is to promote participation, then you don't want to shoot them out of the sky just after takeoff. If you did it too late in the season, you might have months of the coach doing a "live assessment" version of the multiple takes for skills taping.

AT COMPETITION PLACEMENT

I can't imagine being a coach, showing up to competition, and then finding out what division I would be competing in. I've seen some coaches have high speed comeaparts over whether a tumbling mishap was a "Minor" or "major" infraction. The difference is 0.25....which is a difference maker at times, but come on, you already admitted she didn't finish the skill. If you're not clean, you didn't earn it. Anything they give you at that point is a gift. I can only imagine the backlash of a team performing and then being placed in a division lower or higher than the coach wanted them to be in, causing them to do well in a division that he/she views as being inferior or do very poorly in a more elite division. It also takes away from the strategizing. Even at high school nationals, where teams bounce from division to division yearly based on participation numbers. I spent time this morning discussing with our choreographer the risks/benefits of medium versus large varsity. Having that information in mind as we go into choreography in a few weeks allows us to not only emphasize the skills on the team; but do so in a way specific to what is typical of those two divisions and the amount of time we have.

Only didn't have to do em my 5th year

While they were great for training skills and repping out stunts to get timing and added bodies through motivation to be in the shot. It did and would put unneeded pressure on teams.

On the other hand, UCA got rid of taping to in order to boost camp numbers by saying bids were reliant on previous year competition results and camp attendance. Doing this, UCA (and AACCA) can enforce coach education further to direct everyone towards safer participation. Do I think 3 one hour coach meetings and watching a couple stunt classes is enough? Probably not for most part time (all) college coaches. Do I think taping is any better? Nah.

I think it comes down to schools wanting their programs to be safe or not. They need to lead the charge and pay coaches full time salaries and give the teams full budget support so they can plan practices and workouts, organize with strength coaches and trainers and doctors, take the time to attend coaches education seminars, and probably other countless things.

 

[OldskoolKYcheercoach]

Only didn't have to do em my 5th year

While they were great for training skills and repping out stunts to get timing and added bodies through motivation to be in the shot. It did and would put unneeded pressure on teams.

On the other hand, UCA got rid of taping to in order to boost camp numbers by saying bids were reliant on previous year competition results and camp attendance. Doing this, UCA (and AACCA) can enforce coach education further to direct everyone towards safer participation. Do I think 3 one hour coach meetings and watching a couple stunt classes is enough? Probably not for most part time (all) college coaches. Do I think taping is any better? Nah.

I think it comes down to schools wanting their programs to be safe or not. They need to lead the charge and pay coaches full time salaries and give the teams full budget support so they can plan practices and workouts, organize with strength coaches and trainers and doctors, take the time to attend coaches education seminars, and probably other countless things.

Right, I was using the fact that they did away with them as a logical reason why they wouldn't go back in that direction. I honestly was not sure as to why. Skills taping, as it was, was a farce. It would be an equal farce in the context in which it was presented.

Edited to address the second part of your post:

I think most athletic directors would tell you that they would rather do away with cheerleading entirely than deal with it at that level. There's no income from cheer. As good as the University of Kentucky cheerleading program is, they're not the ones that are filling Rupp Arena on a nightly basis. I'm not saying that there isn't millions of dollars floating around in college athletics, but it's not there because of the cheer programs. Employees of state colleges in Kentucky have salaries that are publicly available on the state government website. The only program who's college is paying a full time salary is Morehead State, and even that wouldn't be considered a full-time salary in any other part of the world than the small town of Morehead.