Starting From Scratch: Bids To Year End Championships Via Points

[David Hanbery]

Read Full Article...

This idea is a way to choose participants for a Year End Championship. Right now this idea will be presented with several options that will allow it to be tailored to the needs of those using it. In the near … Continue reading →

 

[CGAcheer]

So a team that comes in 4th in a large division at 15 competitions deserves more points than a team that only competes 7 times, happens to be in a smaller division but absolutely destroys the competition, but are only beating 1 or 2 teams.

and you are essentially just reapplying the infinity cup system

 

[coach4gold]

This is nothing more than a way for an event producer to get gyms to compete more to buy their bid with points, small gyms, gyms in less wealthy areas and half year teams will be hurt more than the big gyms. We all complain about there not being enough competition at some events, season enders usually have great attendance so why would we want to limit that? I'm all for no bids- let everyone compete.

 

[5-6-7-8]

Has this idea been tested with actual past results to see how it would increase / decrease the number of "Year End Championship" teams? (I understand it may be hard to test with the "EPs purchase points" part of the equation, but I think for testing purposes, some educated assumptions could be made.) Similarly, if tested, has it been looked at to see how it would affect smaller gyms, certain regions within the country, "poorer" gyms? I would love to see how if put into action this plan would actually work.

If we had some sort of universal scoring, I would love for that to be somehow incorporated into the results. Just saying one team beats 3, 7 or 15 opponents isn't always going to be "accurate." Or maybe even just a "minimum" score to qualify for points. I do like the suggestion of taking only 5 events maximum as qualifying. (Though see above about testing.)

I had always been of the thought that Worlds / "Year End Championship" should be more "exclusive." But my thoughts may be going back to a "simpler" solution. Have EPs give out paid bids only, and everyone else who wants to compete can do so on Friday with the top advancing (almost like today, but get rid of the "at larges" since it seems if a team really wants one they can pretty much get it. (Though I guess that would not help EPs.)

 

[MomOf2ThatsMe]

This unfairly rewards teams that compete more. Some gyms go to 5 or 6 nationals a year, some 2 or 3. It would also unfairly reward teams that are by nature in a larger division. Just because there was only two other teams in my kid's mini 2 division does not mean their win would be worth less than the tiny team that had 12. Execution-wise they probably did better anyway. I do not want to see EP's having to purchase points as this would drive the cost of entering the event up. It's already annoying that I have to subsidize World's Bids for teams that only brought their one level 5.

I would prefer if there was just a network of EP's (most likely under the Varsity umbrella) who provided a "bid", unpaid, to a National Championship to the first place team in each division at their competition. No pass downs. If a division is split, say small mini 1A, small mini 1B, then the bid goes to the team who places first between all of the mini 1 teams (including small & large, both gym and team). You still get to be "National Champion" for small mini 1A and 1B, but only the overall winner gets the bid. You would have to do this because EP's would certainly take advantage of being known as the event that only has two teams per division, and just keeps splitting so gyms would be more likely to attend their event to get their bids. Which they technically can do. In turn this would take away the prestige of the event. You would have to have a universal scoresheet in order to accomplish this fairly though to ensure that you are really getting the best, and not just a team who managed to "hit" that specific scoresheet that day.

However, in order for this to work USASF would need to really, really crack down on crossovers. No alternates. Sorry. Alternates and "substitutes" would be abused beyond belief. I can see allowing an "equal or lesser" substitute to hit the floor if truly needed for one or two athletes if truly needed, but nothing else.

• • Team Members and Substitutes would need to compete with the team 4 times and Alternates would need to compete with the team 1 time to be eligible for the Year End Championship.

I know my gym wouldn't do this, but I would hate to start hearing about all of the youth 2 kids getting booted for the kids on J4 that didn't get a bid but are still age-eligible.