All-Star #topoftheworlds - Usasf Has Big News On Monday??

[astaley22]

I'm sorry this might be redundant but why are a lot of people against splitting it to D1 and D2 or something like that? I don't have a lot of experience actually being at competitions so I don't know much about that.....maybe I need to read the earlier comments more closely (I was skimming to get a general feel) and if this question was already answered I apologize

Everyone has their different opinions but seems like a general consensus(that I agree with) is that it takes away from the meaning behind "world champion" and turns it into "world champion of a subdivision in this division"

If they did split it- I would hope they would use the same score sheet/same criteria for difficulty and then at the end maybe announce a grand champion for the overall division? But that just seems way too complicated

 

[MoRgAnNe_KaN33n]

Everyone has their different opinions but seems like a general consensus(that I agree with) is that it takes away from the meaning behind "world champion" and turns it into "world champion of a subdivision in this division"

If they did split it- I would hope they would use the same score sheet/same criteria for difficulty and then at the end maybe announce a grand champion for the overall division? But that just seems way too complicated

Oooooooooh that makes sense, it would be like being a lt a pageant instead of a competition.....like with the whole "and The winner of the small all girl small gym under 5'4" is (insert here)!!!" like you would go against like 3 or 4 teams or whatever.... I hope that made sense
BTW- what is this video that everyone is referencing?!?!? Is it on the website or is it on their twitter or FB because I can't find it

 

[tumbleyoda]

^^^ It is in the first post on page one of this thread

 

[MoRgAnNe_KaN33n]

^^^ It is in the first post on page one of this thread

Oh That is probably Why there is a huge blank space there.... Sorry I'm on my iPod using safari. I promise I am not that "special" 

 

[ACEDAD]

Since someone beat me to the punch on answering the other question, let me just echo and "like" @BlueCat s suggestions.

I was willing to give USASF a lot of latitude early on because it was new and needed to build consensus and momentum. I really thought it got about where it needed to be in 2010 or so. They had a moment and it slipped away. Hope they can get it back, but I'm skeptical right now.

 

[SL&AM]

Totally late, but to be honest, the second I saw multiple clips of CTR I had a feeling this was going to be smaller gyms.

 

[Keep_Believing]

Anyone know what time they are announcing it on Monday?

 

[Pebbles49]

Anyone know what time they are announcing it on Monday?

Announce what???
What, what, what - Did my check bounced, again! They don't need to out me like this, what is wrong with these people? It is not fair... I know, I am not the first person to bounce a check... Hmmm, out me on Monday, we see about that!

 

[BlueCat]

Giving everyone fair warning: It will be absurdly easy for mega-gyms to create another business entity and take some of their teams into a smaller gym category. Example: If the cutoff is "under 200" - we could simply move one of our Plano teams' practices (and registration) across town to the Frisco facility. It is a completely separate business with it's own gym, staff, & LLC. Must have a new name, different owners? Fairly simple, actually. Truthfully, I can't think of any remotely reasonable set of rules for this that can't be bypassed.

(I'm not suggesting we WILL do this, just pointing out how easy it would be.)

In many ways, this could work to the opposite of it's apparent intent. Fewer divisions puts downward pressure on the number of Worlds teams the biggest mega-gyms can have. Making new divisions gives them room for growth AND gives some of their less-experienced teams a place to be competitive. A separate physical gym requirement would encourage them to open MORE new facilities.

 

[AliciaM]

I totally agree with more coaching videos and resources. I'm good at explaining to a cheerleader what to do because after tryouts they usually have attempted or seen what to do in various aspects of cheer what is appropriate for their level. Also a lot of people are visual learners and they need to be shown certain skills. I'm a very visual person and hands on learner. I'm just not always great at putting into technical words how to do something. When I did my usasf credentialing I didn't go as high as I wanted due to the instructor telling me I had to explain as if I had NO idea what cheer was I had no gymnastics experience etc but I want to know how to do a handspring, tuck, layout, etc. I can spot up to a layout and I've taught people how to do tucks and they've successfully gotten the skill but since I couldn't put into words with angles and exact terminology I didn't get the credentialing I wanted. There should be more resources for credentialing and coaching in general I think from the USASF. And it would be also great if USASF had regional meetings or more conferences here in Canada for coaches to learn more.


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android

 

[ACEDAD]

@BlueCat well, the controlled group rules that the IRS uses to determine whether multiple companies are related for retirement plans and the Affordable Care Act could be used. It basically says if 5 or fewer people own 80% or more of multiple companies then they are treated as one.

If a company is operating as a franchise and paying a fee for use of name, coaches, etc then that's not part of a controlled group.


The rules are already in place for tax purposes and wouldn't have to create new ones.

I don't think anyone would change ownership just to be in a new division.


The Fierce Board: more debates than USASF has divisions but only barely

 

[12stepCheermom]

@BlueCat well, the controlled group rules that the IRS uses to determine whether multiple companies are related for retirement plans and the Affordable Care Act could be used. It basically says if 5 or fewer people own 80% or more of multiple companies then they are treated as one.

If a company is operating as a franchise and paying a fee for use of name, coaches, etc then that's not part of a controlled group.


The rules are already in place for tax purposes and wouldn't have to create new ones.

I don't think anyone would change ownership just to be in a new division.


The Fierce Board: more debates than USASF has divisions but only barely

I swear I read yours and @Cheerdad's posts just for the new signatures


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android

 

[mamabear]

I swear I read yours and @Cheerdad's posts just for the new signatures

The "please send money " one was like a fortune cookie. It took on a different meaning all its own when you added it to each post he made last week!

 

[SL&AM]

Giving everyone fair warning: It will be absurdly easy for mega-gyms to create another business entity and take some of their teams into a smaller gym category. Example: If the cutoff is "under 200" - we could simply move one of our Plano teams' practices (and registration) across town to the Frisco facility. It is a completely separate business with it's own gym, staff, & LLC. Must have a new name, different owners? Fairly simple, actually. Truthfully, I can't think of any remotely reasonable set of rules for this that can't be bypassed.

(I'm not suggesting we WILL do this, just pointing out how easy it would be.)

In many ways, this could work to the opposite of it's apparent intent. Fewer divisions puts downward pressure on the number of Worlds teams the biggest mega-gyms can have. Making new divisions gives them room for growth AND gives some of their less-experienced teams a place to be competitive. A separate physical gym requirement would encourage them to open MORE new facilities.

The voice of reason must always crush our hopes and dreams.../sigh

Wait, who am I kidding? I pretty much expect the above to happen no matter what they change.

 

[quitthedrama]

Giving everyone fair warning: It will be absurdly easy for mega-gyms to create another business entity and take some of their teams into a smaller gym category. Example: If the cutoff is "under 200" - we could simply move one of our Plano teams' practices (and registration) across town to the Frisco facility. It is a completely separate business with it's own gym, staff, & LLC. Must have a new name, different owners? Fairly simple, actually. Truthfully, I can't think of any remotely reasonable set of rules for this that can't be bypassed.

(I'm not suggesting we WILL do this, just pointing out how easy it would be.)

In many ways, this could work to the opposite of it's apparent intent. Fewer divisions puts downward pressure on the number of Worlds teams the biggest mega-gyms can have. Making new divisions gives them room for growth AND gives some of their less-experienced teams a place to be competitive. A separate physical gym requirement would encourage them to open MORE new facilities.

I have had this discussion with some friends. If this is the announcement the USASF is making, then I hope they have been wise enough to think of this. I would hope there is a rule that says regardless of tax id, if any of the ownership is the same then then all locations count as one gym.
I agree that USASF has a lot more critical things it needs to fix, but I see the smaller (200 or less) gyms constantly losing kids to the big gyms, so if done right (and I have my concerns), I think it is a great thing for the industry.

Proud supporter of the IBFC since 1997