All-Star Proposed Age Changes For Next Season From Doral.

[Dj_Drew]

But now you are what going against what you posted earlier. I agree with popular divisions there will be a lot of teams who don't have shots at winning. But should only 3 teams compete in small senior?

In my first post I was referring to non-worlds teams.

Just because you aren't going to be a top 3 contender in a division doesn't mean you shouldn't be attending worlds. How else does one grow if they don't have the experience? How many teams have attended worlds multiple times but have never placed top 3 until this year?

 

[cheermomforever]

What is the International open age proposal? Are they going to raise it again after lowering it to 14/13 for this year? This divisions age minimum has been so up and down.

 

[King]

In my first post I was referring to non-worlds teams.

Just because you aren't going to be a top 3 contender in a division doesn't mean you shouldn't be attending worlds. How else does one grow if they don't have the experience? How many teams have attended worlds multiple times but have never placed top 3 until this year?

Hey you were the one that said you should change divisions if you don't have a shot or get new coaches.

I think every team and gym has to figure out what their niche is and what they version of success is. Only one team can win, and if you only base victory on winning and you have a very low likelyhood of winning you are not setting yourself up for success.

 

[CGAcheer]

Do Worlds teams (with Worlds athletes) at small gyms honestly represent a legitimate business avenue?

its definitely not a huge portion of the business, but you and others have tried to make the case that it would help us keep the kids longer before they jump ship for the big gym down the street, my point is that it would just make it where all of the level 5's would move on to the big gym up the street when they get their toe tuck and their full because of the inability to create a team for them with a decreased range to pull from.

but beyond worlds, the gym that is trying to build up to a level 3 or level 4 team or the gym that has a variety of skill levels in each age group but only enough kids to make one team per age group- Forcing that gym to put toe tucks on the same team with backward rolls

no one has been able to show a monetary benefit to mandated bottom ages. As it currently is, no one is forcing you to have younger kids on your teams, if you and your gym don't like having 10 year olds with 18 year olds, then don't do it.

another excuse for it is "you don't see 10 year olds playing baseball/football against 18 year olds, that would be crazy" yes that is correct it would be crazy to have them compete directly against each other physically on the same field where they directly interact/tackle/block/pitch/hit against. That would pose a safety issue, but you can't tell me that it is less safe to have a 10 year old in a stunt than it is to have an 18 year old in the stunt.

another excuse is gymnastics has age/years in level requirements and that works for their dying sport because it is an individual sport, you don't have to put together 20 kids of a similar skill and age level while making sure you have an appropriate number of backs, bases and flyers

the last excuse that people go to is that the innocent 10 year old will be exposed to craziness of the 18 year olds weekend activities. Its going to happen whether they are on the same team or not. They might practice at the same time or tumble at the same time or even live in the same house or be babysat by them or be their camp counselors or lead their bible study or tutor them in math. Anyways its not like you have 1 lonely youngster on a team college freshmen, you have girls who span the entire range, with some great role models as well as some other kids.

where is the benefit of forcing everyone to have bottom ages?

The only thing is using the usasf as a scapegoat when you are telling suzys mom why she isn't on the older team "I'm sorry miss suzy but the USASF picks our teams for us now, we don't have any say in the matter any more" Stand up to suzy and her mom and tell her you put her on whatever team because that is the place she fits best

 

[Bling it On]

Proposed**** Age Grid Changes Effective Next Season:

Bottom Ages:

Worlds 13
Tiny
0-6
Mini
6-8
Youth
8-11
Junior
11-14
Sr 13-18
Open 18/under
Jr 14/under

Thoughts?

DISLIKE!!!! Please USASF let us adjust to all the changes you just made for a year or two before you go messing us all up again!! Pretty please??
I'm concerned this age grid will put small gyms at an even larger disadvantage than they already are not to mention discouraging younger athletes with more advanced skills from sticking with this sport due to not having enough equitably talented kids in their age bracken to front that level of team. My CP has always competed up an age bracket or two. If she had been forced to compete in only her age bracket I think she would have given up cheer altogether. What's a small gym supposed to do when they have 22 L1 youth aged kids and 3 or 4 L3 or L4 youth aged kids?? They will be forced to make the advanced youth aged athletes compete L1. I'm sure that will not be encouraging to those young athletes.


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

 

[King]

its definitely not a huge portion of the business, but you and others have tried to make the case that it would help us keep the kids longer before they jump ship for the big gym down the street, my point is that it would just make it where all of the level 5's would move on to the big gym up the street when they get their toe tuck and their full because of the inability to create a team for them with a decreased range to pull from.

but beyond worlds, the gym that is trying to build up to a level 3 or level 4 team or the gym that has a variety of skill levels in each age group but only enough kids to make one team per age group- Forcing that gym to put toe tucks on the same team with backward rolls

no one has been able to show a monetary benefit to mandated bottom ages. As it currently is, no one is forcing you to have younger kids on your teams, if you and your gym don't like having 10 year olds with 18 year olds, then don't do it.

another excuse for it is "you don't see 10 year olds playing baseball/football against 18 year olds, that would be crazy" yes that is correct it would be crazy to have them compete directly against each other physically on the same field where they directly interact/tackle/block/pitch/hit against. That would pose a safety issue, but you can't tell me that it is less safe to have a 10 year old in a stunt than it is to have an 18 year old in the stunt.

another excuse is gymnastics has age/years in level requirements and that works for their dying sport because it is an individual sport, you don't have to put together 20 kids of a similar skill and age level while making sure you have an appropriate number of backs, bases and flyers

the last excuse that people go to is that the innocent 10 year old will be exposed to craziness of the 18 year olds weekend activities. Its going to happen whether they are on the same team or not. They might practice at the same time or tumble at the same time or even live in the same house or be babysat by them or be their camp counselors or lead their bible study or tutor them in math. Anyways its not like you have 1 lonely youngster on a team college freshmen, you have girls who span the entire range, with some great role models as well as some other kids.

where is the benefit of forcing everyone to have bottom ages?

The only thing is using the usasf as a scapegoat when you are telling suzys mom why she isn't on the older team "I'm sorry miss suzy but the USASF picks our teams for us now, we don't have any say in the matter any more" Stand up to suzy and her mom and tell her you put her on whatever team because that is the place she fits best

OK, using your logic can you provide evidence that what you are doing is more profitable and beneficial than what anyone has proposed? Or is it all based off what you 'feel' is better?

 

[NJ Coach]

The age grid is not changing this season. In fact, this thread is about a proposal about a future age grid. It was decided, by coaches, at Doral that there needed to be discussion about it. We all need to discuss it, but please realize that this isn't happening just yet.

 

[CGAcheer]

OK, using your logic can you provide evidence that what you are doing is more profitable and beneficial than what anyone has proposed? Or is it all based off what you 'feel' is better?

I'll copy and paste what I said on a facebook thread about the subject

ok so after a quick rearrangement, and I'm sure there could be slightly different variations that may or may not be slightly better this is what the bottom ages would do to my gym this year.​

I currently will most likely have 5 teams a J1(20), Y2(18), LS2(28), S3(18), S4(17) with essentially(a few exceptions) squad skill except for 5 15 year olds who don't have a bhs are on the LS2​

following the proposed bottom ages, I would most likely have 6 teams- Y1(11), J1(13), y2(19), J2(20), s3(20), s4(16) and having kicked out 5 kids who were between 5 and 7 years old.​

this also put 5 kids without a bhs on a Sr 3 team that only has 2 flyers or I could pull up some of the older j2's to make 1 or 2 more ​

this also puts some layouts and toe backs on a j2 in addition to a few on the Y2​

So in conclusion with just my gym, I lose over $500 a month in revenue (possibly only $200 as I may have to tell the 5 year old and the 2 six year olds to wait for our prep teams) and it would add a team which takes 4 more hours of floor space and coaches time a week in addition to choreo, music etc. So lets say conservatively I could put a tumbling class in that time making $60 an hour. Thats nearly $1000 a month + $500+ $2000 in choreo, $600 in music. ​

This age grid change just cost me a potential $20,000 for the year on top of having a wider range of skill levels on the teams and potentially losing the level 4 kids who would end up on a level 2 team and the kids who won't get to tumble at all in their routine because they were forced up to a skill level that they were not even close to ready for.​

So how is this good for the industry??​

if you really want bottom caps, nothing is stopping your gym from self imposing bottom ages​

​

 

[CGAcheer]

The age grid is not changing this season. In fact, this thread is about a proposal about a future age grid. It was decided, by coaches, at Doral that there needed to be discussion about it. We all need to discuss it, but please realize that this isn't happening just yet.

I know its not changing this year and would be for next year at the earliest and if they followed their biannual process, which they don't, it should not be enacted until the 15-16 season

 

[NJ Coach]

I know its not changing this year and would be for next year at the earliest and if they followed their biannual process, which they don't, it should not be enacted until the 15-16 season

well, I know YOU know

 

[CGAcheer]

OK, using your logic can you provide evidence that what you are doing is more profitable and beneficial than what anyone has proposed? Or is it all based off what you 'feel' is better?

as to how I "feel" for a small gym it would be like essentially sending a usasf rep to your tryouts to tell you what teams you had to make, especially for the ones with less than 60 kids

when you were at stingrays would you want someone to come in and tell yall what teams you had to make? Bottom ages takes the coaches ability to choose what is best for their athletes away

 

[CGAcheer]

well, I know YOU know

What do you think about bottom ages? you are part of a smaller mid sized ish type gym

 

[CGAcheer]

also when and if they get the initial bottom age, they have a tendency to want to keep changing and will most likely then try to creep the bottom age up.

also if you were a gym with a self imposed bottom on your sr division, I bet that you have more 10 and 11 year olds on your sr teams after the bottom age was put there than you did before. Because now suzy is "officially" old enough

 

[NJ Coach]

What do you think about bottom ages? you are part of a smaller mid sized ish type gym

I'm kinda split on the thought. Half of me wouldn't hate them, if they overlapped. The other half doesn't like them, and indeed, it would probably hurt our gym, at least definitely in the short term. Not sure how it would play out long term.

It actually would be more destructive to our junior program than our senior. It is not uncommon for us (and many other gyms) to fly older youth kids on our junior teams because they are too big to fly youth, or their tumbling has surpassed what we can currently offer at the youth level. With the proposal, some of them would no longer be eligible to do that.

 

[King]

as to how I "feel" for a small gym it would be like essentially sending a usasf rep to your tryouts to tell you what teams you had to make, especially for the ones with less than 60 kids

when you were at stingrays would you want someone to come in and tell yall what teams you had to make? Bottom ages takes the coaches ability to choose what is best for their athletes away

I think you missed my whole example that small gym should be open divisions. And saying they are coming in to choose your team for you is hyperbole. Technically they already do that with age caps. By that argument we should have no age or level caps and just let everyone do what they want and figure out the winner.

Instead levels and age caps have increased competition, as would floors. The smaller gyms, as said earlier in my example, would be exempt. I think the size of small gym should grow anyway. As well you have the grandfather 2 year rule of producing athletes above the number of small gym before you grow out. One year of not being a small gym size doesn't mean you can maintain it.

Last, you are using your specific situation as the example of why this wouldn't work for the industry. So ignoring the benefits of the proposed system because it affects you this year for you. It doesn't necessarily affect you next year. You wouldn't choose next years teams based on this years tryouts, would you? So unless we are willing to think long term and outside the box were always just going to be running around every year wondering if we should make changes.