All-Star Opinions On Really Small Teams

[cheer25mom]

I see it as no problem for younger teams and lower levels.
The team that won summit 2 years ago in small senior 2 only had about 13 kids.

I think it can be done on almost any level. The team that won R5 at D2 summit had one stunt group.

 

[jennarap]

I think it can be done on almost any level. The team that won R5 at D2 summit had one stunt group.

really? thats great! what is their name? I would love to see that.
I had only really seen teams level 3 and under have really small teams.

 

[Mom2Cheergirls]

Personally I don't like it for when injuries occur you can be hurting filling in. BUT the girls really get to know each other (this should be good and personally seems less drama because there just is no room for little cliques). Also I have seen a kick but youth level 1 team and yes I know level 1 but they can be really great and it is harder to impress with those simple skills but they were rock solid and the routine was creative and used the mat and they had 9 girls. So it can be done and done well. I do like though large rock solid teams as well and how they look.

 

[cheer25mom]

really? thats great! what is their name? I would love to see that.
I had only really seen teams level 3 and under have really small teams.

I don't remember their name and I cannot get varsity's site to load the results. I just remember our coaches commenting on it and how good they were to be such a small team.

 

[Boughetto]

I coached a J1 team this year. When we went to Myrtle Beachfor BatB, the first place team had only 4 members, while we had 19.

Is there no minimum number of athletes required to for a team?

 

[Michael White]

Is there no minimum number of athletes required to for a team?

They may have had 5, but there were only 4 at awards I think.

 

[C*A-Shelby K]

Im okay with the occasional small team but when gyms consistently do it to all of their teams is when I start to see a problem with it. There is a gym about 2 hours from me and they consistently place about 7 athletes on every single one of their teams. They are a very very small gym but they are always only putting 7ish kids on their teams. Im honestly not sure why I have a problem with it to be honest, but every time I see them compete and win it just rubs me the wrong way I guess. Maybe its because I see how comfortable the kids are with say level 2 and how good they are at their skills and wonder why they aren't combined with their level 3? I really dont know why it bothers me to be honest but it just does because it happens year after year.

 

[Alexx]

Im okay with the occasional small team but when gyms consistently do it to all of their teams is when I start to see a problem with it. There is a gym about 2 hours from me and they consistently place about 7 athletes on every single one of their teams. They are a very very small gym but they are always only putting 7ish kids on their teams. Im honestly not sure why I have a problem with it to be honest, but every time I see them compete and win it just rubs me the wrong way I guess. Maybe its because I see how comfortable the kids are with say level 2 and how good they are at their skills and wonder why they aren't combined with their level 3? I really dont know why it bothers me to be honest but it just does because it happens year after year.

But if those kids on the level two team don't have solid level three skills (Roundoff tuck, roundoff bhs tuck, standing multiples, combo jumps to 2 BHS), that would make the level three team not competitive at all. Thats why the gym is making small, but level appropriate teams. Nobody wants to be on a team that doesn't at least have a chance at winning.

 

[Charolais]

Im okay with the occasional small team but when gyms consistently do it to all of their teams is when I start to see a problem with it. There is a gym about 2 hours from me and they consistently place about 7 athletes on every single one of their teams. They are a very very small gym but they are always only putting 7ish kids on their teams. Im honestly not sure why I have a problem with it to be honest, but every time I see them compete and win it just rubs me the wrong way I guess. Maybe its because I see how comfortable the kids are with say level 2 and how good they are at their skills and wonder why they aren't combined with their level 3? I really dont know why it bothers me to be honest but it just does because it happens year after year.

Do you think there may be a bit of sandbagging? I do see a difference between an athlete that is competitive at Level 2 versus one that has Level 3 skills but not at a competitive level.

 

[tojofasho]

I think it can be done on almost any level. The team that won R5 at D2 summit had one stunt group.

I know Arizona Heat won RC5 with only 2 stunt groups at D2 Summit, and they had awesome choreography to mask the fact their team was so small. I think as long as you have that "WOW" factor choreography, you can do just fine with a small team.

 

[C*A-Shelby K]

But if those kids on the level two team don't have solid level three skills (Roundoff tuck, roundoff bhs tuck, standing multiples, combo jumps to 2 BHS), that would make the level three team not competitive at all. Thats why the gym is making small, but level appropriate teams. Nobody wants to be on a team that doesn't at least have a chance at winning.

Do you think there may be a bit of sandbagging? I do see a difference between an athlete that is competitive at Level 2 versus one that has Level 3 skills but not at a competitive level.

Thats why I don't know why it bothers me but yet it does. Because obviously i'm not in their gym and don't know these athletes but looking at how solid and easy their level 2 skills look (and just in general knowing how ratios of most teams are with people who are ready to move up to a higher level) I would say there have to be a few of them who could move up and the ones that aren't maybe put them on a level 1? And I completely understand maybe having the skills and not being competitive and saying at a certain level and with such a small gym maybe this is how they have to do it. But after watching their youth 2 (I think it was youth 2 it was two years ago) beat out teams of 20 all year long because they were maxing out with 7 athletes all year long almost felt unfair in a way. Obviously a team of 7 if the routine is constructed correctly will score well because its easier to make a team of 7 have all the skills to max out than a team of 20. especially at the level 2 level for small gyms.

 

[Alexx]

hya276a3s

Thats why I don't know why it bothers me but yet it does. Because obviously i'm not in their gym and don't know these athletes but looking at how solid and easy their level 2 skills look (and just in general knowing how ratios of most teams are with people who are ready to move up to a higher level) I would say there have to be a few of them who could move up and the ones that aren't maybe put them on a level 1? And I completely understand maybe having the skills and not being competitive and saying at a certain level and with such a small gym maybe this is how they have to do it. But after watching their youth 2 (I think it was youth 2 it was two years ago) beat out teams of 20 all year long because they were maxing out with 7 athletes all year long almost felt unfair in a way. Obviously a team of 7 if the routine is constructed correctly will score well because its easier to make a team of 7 have all the skills to max out than a team of 20. especially at the level 2 level for small gyms.

I think what that gym is doing is smart. Nobody said you had to max out numbers on teams, and they're taking advantage of it. With a team of seven, you have to get creative and everyone has to have perfected level skills. Theres no way to hide someone who doesn't tumble on a team of seven. And like I said before,unless some of those on the level 2 team have perfect level 3 skills, it would put the level 3 team at a disadvantage. Also, if this gym likes to create teams with perfected skills and someone on that level two team has perfected level 3 skills, I'm sure that athlete would be on that level 3 team instead of the level 2. And while it may be easier to have a team of 7 max out, only having one person not tumble, you're already down to about 85% of your team having the required skills, whereas one person not having level skills out of 20 only puts that at 95%. You also have to be more creative on smaller teams due to being able to have less visuals, especially in pyramid.

 

[cheernerd5678]

I've competed on a small team. It definitely makes the team very close knit, you can't not know everyone pretty well by the end of the season. But it's hard. It's hard for things to be visually interesting with 2-3 stunt groups, but it's even harder because you have less to work with when you're making stunt groups so you're more likely to have bases that are differing heights, if something's not working (a transition for example or a stunt) less room to switch around stunt groups, and if there's an injury it's a lot more difficult to work around. One person being injured or missing practice affects a team of 12 more than a team of 20.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[california cheer mom]

I think they won senior 2 and Power Fresno won youth 2 this year. Their FB and web pages are all about you have to have the skills, quality over quantity etc.(and the Summit) But they also have two fewer gyms this year and what looks like fewer teams. We ran into them a lot over the past few years, and they used to have teams in basically every division. Doesn't look that way this year.

They also had a Redding location this season (which I think is closing). At least one of the comps we went to this season they swept the awards in 1,2 and 3 (all different locations). They may have beefed up their Summit team to 12, I thought it was smaller when we saw it, but in general they had really small teams this year. I think we talked about this before, but they used to be a powerhouse gym in the area and sort of disappeared off the Varsity circuit for a few years.

 

[cheer25mom]

Thats why I don't know why it bothers me but yet it does. Because obviously i'm not in their gym and don't know these athletes but looking at how solid and easy their level 2 skills look (and just in general knowing how ratios of most teams are with people who are ready to move up to a higher level) I would say there have to be a few of them who could move up and the ones that aren't maybe put them on a level 1? And I completely understand maybe having the skills and not being competitive and saying at a certain level and with such a small gym maybe this is how they have to do it. But after watching their youth 2 (I think it was youth 2 it was two years ago) beat out teams of 20 all year long because they were maxing out with 7 athletes all year long almost felt unfair in a way. Obviously a team of 7 if the routine is constructed correctly will score well because its easier to make a team of 7 have all the skills to max out than a team of 20. especially at the level 2 level for small gyms.

I fail to see how it is unfair. Should the team of 20 win just because there are 20, or should the team that puts the most difficult, cleanly executed routine?? I come from a small gym that is fielding a team of 8 this year, because we have 8 athletes who are capable of performing every skill on that level at the quality necessary to put out a winning routine, should we move up a few that don't have the skills to make larger teams feel better about it, or make these kids who have the skills compete a level down?

You are complaining about them basically sandbagging this team with level 3 athletes in the same breath you suggest that they split the team up and do the same thing to their level 1. I don't get what you want here?? I think maybe you just don't like the fact that 7 athletes are capable of beating 20? I think that they SHOULD have a fighting chance within the division and the rules are doing a better job of leveling that playing field. It used to be REALLY hard to compete if you didn't come close to maxing out size. My CP was on a mini 1 team of 10 kids that was really successful at a time that it just didn't happen. Those kids had to be twice as good as a team of 20 to stand a chance, and it shouldn't be that way.