All-Star Usasf 2011-2013 Rule Proposals!

[Ashley]

lacking empathy? Perhaps I lack it because I'm driven to succeed and excel no matter what it takes. I don't know about where you guys are from, but around here real sports have real requirements when it comes to making a "travel" team. Whether it be soccer, volleyball, softball, baseball, lacrosse, or field hockey, EVERY single "travel" team has cuts. If you don't meet the skill requirement, you don't make the team. It's as simple as that. Nobody is excluding them from taking a tumbling and stunting class at the gym. Just like nobody is preventing me from taking a volleyball class to learn to play a sport I've never played before since I so desperately need to do it (relating back to everyone's wonderful examples). At 14+ years old, you should be able to take critique and understand what set skills are. And more importantly, you should understand why you don't meet them. Like the saying goes, you can always teach an old dog new tricks. If they want it as bad as you guys make it out to be, they'll learn it. Trust me on that one. And if they don't? Well maybe that's the start of the life lesson that sometimes, no matter what people tell you, your best will just never be good enough. It's harsh, but it's the truth. Every other sport let's their kids learn it, why can't we?

Actually, the saying says "You can't teach an old dog new tricks."

 

[socratesofcheer]

Actually, the saying says "You can't teach an old dog new tricks."

I taught my dog to roll over just last week, and he's 10!

 

[newcheerdad]

I'd like to respond to some of PghxCheer2's comments.

I'm not actually for getting rid of the athletes. I'll admit, my wording was a little harsh. My argument is to get rid of the division.

There is actually a valid argument for this. I know that our gym's lowest level senior team is level 2. In fact, I don't think I've ever personally seen senior level 1 at a competition. And if there's evidence that 14+ year old kids by and large can perform and compete at level 2 (even if they don't have all of their tumbling skills) then there might not be a reason to have a level 1 team.

But if there's a need for level 1 teams at the senior level, then they should exist.

Like I said, In every other sport they save the traveling for the equivalent of a level 4 or 5 athlete.

That isn't totally accurate. I know plenty of smaller soccer programs where believe me, most of them will be happy to put you on a competitive team if you want to be on it. And even larger, more selective ones have no-cut hybrid rec/competitive teams, where people who may not have the skills for an elite team can still play at a higher level, go to tournaments, etc. (although they don't compete in the state/regional tournaments)

So maybe level 1 should be sanctioned (so these kids get to compete at local competitions), but national competitions should start at level 2. And do that across the board. I'm not saying that's the right answer, mind you.

If you're talking about high school sports, then yes, there are cuts, depending on the sport and its popularity in a given area. But in sports and areas where there's lots of kids trying out, there are also freshman and jayvee teams that get to travel as well. Again, it's the idea that you match up players who are roughly the same age and skill level when at all possible. And at the high school level, teams are matched up by the size of the school to keep a further competitive balance.

And please newcheerdad! "matched with kids of similar age"! REALLY!? That ship sailed LONG LONG LONG ago, my friend. I can't tell you how many 10 year olds I saw flying on senior teams of all levels last year.

I've discussed this in other threads. I've been involved in youth soccer as a coach and official for a long time, and I've expressed my concern about young kids on senior teams as a general rule. (not specific to cheer) I know it's common, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the best thing for the athlete in the long run.

http://fierceboard.com/forum/posts/262835/

 

[F!ERCE]

haha I can't tell if your agreeing with me or not, but that's basically the original point I was trying to make. Don't ditch the athletes, ditch the division. If you want the kids bad enough, you'll find a place for them.

and Bowmaker, put them on a different team, maybe? The division isn't changing tomorrow. They would be aware of the change when they are forming teams.

That's illogical. You can't just magically find 20 or 36 spots throughout your gym for true level 1 athletes. Your only possible (reasonable) option is level 2. If you already have a full Senior 2....you'd be S.O.L.

Just because you eliminate a division does not mean that there will be fewer beginners.

 

[IloveSeniorElite]

I'm not actually for getting rid of the athletes. I'll admit, my wording was a little harsh. My argument is to get rid of the division. You guys are still totally missing my point about the private tumbling class. Let me make something clear, what I consider "your best" isn't enrolling in one or two tumbling classes a week and then crying boo-who when you still don't have the backhandspring after a year. Your best comes from the other 5 or 6 days. Because unless you are building cardio and muscle mass those day, I really don't see the argument you guys are making. Tumbling is one section of the scoresheet. If they are managing at level 2 stunting, jumping, and dancing, you shouldn't be mad at the USASF. You should be mad at the coach. Just because a team has 12 backhandsprings doesn't make them the winning team. And just because you have 7 or 8 doesn't make you the losers. It's a team sport and sometimes you have to pick up where others lack. That might be tumbling, it might be stunting, it might be dance. Every team is different. Almost anyone can be athletic, but not all are blessed with it by nature. Sometimes you have to push yourself five times as hard than your neighbor to achieve the same results. What I stand by is that I do in fact have empathy for these athletes. I'll only have empathy for the ones that are actually giving it the 110% your talking about though, IloveSeniorElite. What planet do we live on that 110% is a) even physically possible or b) considered putting in 2 or 3 days of hard work per week? And I never said discouragment is a good idea? How is it discouraging to offer them tumbling and stunting classes, and an oppurtunity to even begin the sport at a traveling level at the age of 15. Like I said, In every other sport they save the traveling for the equivalent of a level 4 or 5 athlete. My initial argument (made earlier in the thread) was to open up spots on the level 2 team for these athletes. By being with the higher level athletes, they will be even more driven to get that backhandspring if you ask me. And please newcheerdad! "matched with kids of similar age"! REALLY!? That ship sailed LONG LONG LONG ago, my friend. I can't tell you how many 10 year olds I saw flying on senior teams of all levels last year. To end my novel, I'm also going to say that it isn't as easy as just taking Senior 1 off the grid, there will have to be rules added and subtracted if it was to work the way I envision it.

You seem to have this unrealistic theory of "wanting something bad enough, so it will happen." Just because an owner wants to find 20 spots on their already assembled teams for their level 1 athletes, does not mean it can automatically happen. Sure, they may be able to find 5 or 6 here or there. But when teams are already full and may even have extra alternates, there simply would not logically be a spot to put them without making a new team. The same way an athlete can want to get a skill bad enough but it still may not happen. Being on a team they are not qualified for might have the opposite effects of driving them towards skills. I've been on level 5 team I was not qualified for in the area of tumbling. I was already driven to gain skills, it did not help being around athletes who already had those skills. If anything, it can make it worse. It can create a lot of pressure for an athlete to try to catch up to those around her in a short amount of time and she may crumble. It may become too overwhelming to handle when they continue to be behind in tumbling and the time frame is closing in.

Your arguments really contradict themselves. First you said if you don't have the skills, you don't make the team. Okay, fine, I get that. But then you said you aren't for getting rid of these athletes, and they could be placed on level 2 teams. If they truly have on level 1 skills, shouldn't they not be placed on level 2 according to your logic? Also, you mentioned how you lacked empathy in your first sentence of your earlier post, but now you claim you have empathy for those who give 110%. Which is it? And please, do we really need to get into the specifics of 100% versus 110%? I was not implying that 2 or 3 days of hard work in the gym is full effort. I simply saying that in the time a person spends in the gym they may be giving it their 100%. Not everyone can be in the gym 6 days a week. Things such as money for privates and being in the gym all those days, family obligations, school obligations might all be holding them back. You never know what someone has on their plate. Still though, it is totally unfair to assume if they do not do the things you mentioned that they must not want it as bad as others.

Tell me, have you ever tried to accomplish a new tumbling skill in two months (as you first stated before you changed it to one year)? If so, you would know it is difficult considering most people cannot be in the gym 5-6 days of the week. I am talking no cartwheel, round off, bridge, front walkover, etc. It is tough enough to get your standing tuck or whatever skill in two months for someone with tumbling experience. But for someone who has no previous skills? That's asking a lot. I don't understand who it is hurting to keep level 1 senior teams, even if it's not a thriving division.

 

[KTNSinspiredbyFIERCECATS]

I'm sorry, but most of your points are the most asinine points I've heard. First of all, I'm assuming that the girls who are older and just starting out who ARE 100 percent committed and giving it their all ARE doing things the rest of the week to contribute to their skill building. Have you not seen some of those girls at the gym you attend practicing and/or utilizing the gym almost every day of the week...because I have (often more than the higher level one). Just because they utilize every tumbling class offered, privates 1-2 times a week, extra stunting classes, etc...doesn't mean that they will all still progress the same way. Your logic is also asinine bc as it's been pointed out, not everyone is capable of producing a higher level of skill in a shorter period of time. Take academics for example, some people are naturally gifted and learning, getting good grades, high SAT scores, etc...just comes naturally. However, there are plenty of people in which this is not the case. They do have to work harder to achieve the same type of academic success as their peers, despite their common age, same number of years in school, etc. So should we not encourage them to follow their dreams of attending a prestigious college one day bc they are not as naturally smart? Of course not...maybe it takes those people a couple of extra years after high school to catch up to the level required to attend that college, but there shouldn't be a rule saying "if you don't go right after high school you can never go". I realize that is not quite the same thing, but the point is similar.


Perhaps the biggest problem I have with the things you said, is bc believe it or not, Allstar cheerleading is not all about winning titles. As I'm sure any coach would be willing to agree, it about learning teamwork, achieving goals, building confidence, building character, friendships and memories to last a lifetime. As a 14 year old girl who perhaps didn't make the cut on her HS squad (regardless if they're even good bc so often politics sadly dictate these teams), or maybe lacks the confidence to even try out or participate in any extra curricular activities, allstar cheerleading can give that to her. She would be welcomed w/open arms and probably leave the program w/something(s) she would have never been able to achieve/acquire had she not joined.....regardless if she was ever able to master a BHS.

One you will NEVER convince me that if a girl is giving 110% (going to privates, conditioning outside of the gym, ect.) can't get a back handspring between tryouts in May and their first competition in December! And with your example of academics... If I had a 14+ year old come up to me at beginner level which I would say is learning their ABC's and they couldn't become a level 2 student for example learn how to spell words like cat, dog, mom, and, dad in 7 months by going to school, getting private tutoring, and doing all their homework then somethings wrong! Therefore I say get rid of SENIOR level 1! If girls can't learn those simple skills at and older, wiser, more coordinated age then go join your high school team where cheerleading isn't taken as seriously and all you do is stand on the sidelines and do motions.
Also for the cheer extreme lover... you should most deff know this! Cheerleading now a days is 100% about winning! That's why we have competitions that you have to WIN to receive a bid for another competition (all levels and worlds)
with that... everyone wants to compete at these competitions and WIN so they can be named THE BEST... Isn't that what your favorite team wanted last season TO WIN not "learn teamwork, achieve goals, build confidence, build character, friendships and memories to last a lifetime" They might have done that along the way BUT but that's not the reason why they drove for hours, threw their routine hundreds of times, or put on their uniform. They did it all BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO WIN!

 

[KTNSinspiredbyFIERCECATS]

ALSO... For these girls who don't have the skills and there is no room for them put them in a tumbling class... if cheering is that important to them they'll get the skill! If making the mat for my college team is that important to me then I will work hard and get the required skills in fall semester so I can be chosen for the team and compete during spring semester.

 

[xtremeteal4life]

One you will NEVER convince me that if a girl is giving 110% (going to privates, conditioning outside of the gym, ect.) can't get a back handspring between tryouts in May and their first competition in December! And with your example of academics... If I had a 14+ year old come up to me at beginner level which I would say is learning their ABC's and they couldn't become a level 2 student for example learn how to spell words like cat, dog, mom, and, dad in 7 months by going to school, getting private tutoring, and doing all their homework then somethings wrong! Therefore I say get rid of SENIOR level 1! If girls can't learn those simple skills at and older, wiser, more coordinated age then go join your high school team where cheerleading isn't taken as seriously and all you do is stand on the sidelines and do motions.
Also for the cheer extreme lover... you should most deff know this! Cheerleading now a days is 100% about winning! That's why we have competitions that you have to WIN to receive a bid for another competition (all levels and worlds)
with that... everyone wants to compete at these competitions and WIN so they can be named THE BEST... Isn't that what your favorite team wanted last season TO WIN not "learn teamwork, achieve goals, build confidence, build character, friendships and memories to last a lifetime" They might have done that along the way BUT but that's not the reason why they drove for hours, threw their routine hundreds of times, or put on their uniform. They did it all BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO WIN!

Of course the main goal in competitive cheerleading is to win...but please do not presume to know another gym's philosophies if you are not affiliated w/them...bc I assure you that you are wrong. I would not have stated them if they weren't.

Also, while I understand I did use an academic analogy...comparing learning your ABC's at 14 in the US is absurd bc the brain's capacity for learning is quite different than the body's ability to master a kinetic skill. The example I gave was a little more realistic bc I do understand the differences between the two.

 

[mdcheerdiva]

I just want to weigh in on this Senior level 1 debate. There is a senior 1 team at my cp's gym all of those girls want to cheer to the best of their abilities. The incentive for them to learn new skills and move up is the fact that level 1 and 2's typically do not travel at our gym. My cp's gym is true to skill level so they are not going to put a level 1 kid on a level 2 or 3 just so that they wont be on a senior 1 team. I believe all children should have a chance to get involved in this sport no matter what level they come in at. In my area there is plenty of competition in senior 1. With this economy you can't expect girls to be in the gym every day for a class/private it is unrealistic.

 

[kristenthegreat]

I'd like to point out a few things:
1) Many of the people getting into OTHER sports (I'd say cheer is virtually excluded), have played them before in gym. They've had the chance to get those skills in a school, not-super-competitive setting and if they've picked up the desire to play, they'll practice at home/look for classes or camps to learn more. There are plenty of individual camps and clinics throughout the year for individuals in these other sports (as well as during the summer), but I don't know how many gyms actively pursue classes/clinic throughout the year for NEW cheerleaders (not girls who already cheer HS and want to switch to all-star). I'm talking fresh, new, unfamiliar, never did gymnastics before athletes. I don't think there are that many, to be frank. So if a girl says she wants to cheer competitively, it's probably her first time doing ANYTHING of the sort, unless they happen to have a basics class available, which many don't. That's a lot of skills you're trying to cram into a short space of time, many of which are completely foreign to the body. Throwing something- common skill necessary for basic survival. Easier to adapt. BHS were NOT in our DNA for survival. That's a HARD skill to work.

2) I help my mom coach volleyball in the summer. She works with the new girls who have never played before. Volleyball, which has more of a 'sport' standing than cheer and is routinely played in gym, still has a wide difference in skill between the athletes. Many of the girls who come in to my HS didn't have a MS team, or if they did they probably didn't tryout. Volleyball has just as much coordination requirements as cheer (although less risk of injury), and I'd laugh in your face if you told me you could get ALL of my girls to pass perfectly in 2 months with them working everyday. These girls work above and beyond to try to get these skills, but they require a LOT of coordination that takes a while for some girls. They might be able to pass and it might not go flying into the other court, but that doesn't mean they're ready for the next level, kinda like just because a girl can throw her feet over her head and not die, doesn't mean she has a BHS. And while we are a small school and therefore DON'T have a cut program, that doesn't mean all the girls will play, simply because we don't have a level for them. On the other side, cheer does. It's level 1. These girls are in HS.

3) Not all cheer programs allow every girl off the street to sideline. Many have tryouts. So saying we should foister them off onto a HS program as a way to 'take care of them' is ludicrous. Who says they'd ever be allowed to tryout. What do you suggest we do with them now, seeing as you don't want them to have a level and the HS program won't allow them. Should we discriminate? Other sports have places for their athletes of this nature, and cheer only has allstar programs or HS. Not a lot of options, eh?

 

[yougottabelieve]

can't we just keep everything the same... :\

 

[PghxCheer2]

Because I even said half of this stuff? I may have the theory of "if you want it bad enough, you'll get it", but just about everyone arguing also have the unrealistic theory that tumbling is the only section on a scoresheet. There are four other sections that girls have a chance to excel in level 2: Dance, Baskets, Stunting, and Jumps. Simply because a girl gets a backhandspring doesn't make them a level 2 cheerleader. Just like the fact that a girl who doesn't shouldn't be immediately considered level 1.

Just because an owner wants to find 20 spots on their already assembled teams for their level 1 athletes, does not mean it can automatically happen.

...and may even have extra alternates...

I already stated that the division shouldn't be axed tomorrow. So I'll simply re-state what I already stated: It would be at the beginning of the season, before teams were even assembled. If you have a full large level 2 team, take 10 of your best girls from that and divide it up. You'll have a Small Senior 2 and a Large Senior 2. Both will have plenty of equal talent. And Extra Alternates? But wait, I thought in your world nobody got cut and everyone got to cheer on the team they should be on? If nobody get's hurt you might as well have just gotten cut at the beginning of the season. Except now your left with time wasted on a team you never got to experience and lost anticipation you once had that you might get to perform.

I've been on level 5 team I was not qualified for in the area of tumbling. I was already driven to gain skills, it did not help being around athletes who already had those skills. If anything, it can make it worse. It can create a lot of pressure for an athlete to try to catch up to those around her in a short amount of time and she may crumble.

I too have played up on a team I wasn't necessarily ready for. And I'll admit, I didn't enjoy myself 100% of the time. But I still did a lot of the time, and overall I would say I progressed the most that year from playing around the girls with more experience and higher skill then me. I was one of the slower pitchers in the league at that time, and didn't have any fancy pitches, but because I relied on the girls behind me to make up for what I lacked by making the plays that were thrown at them, we won the section title that year because everyone learned something. For most it was that you don't need to be the best at one aspect to be effective to the team. It goes back to how much the girl wants to be on the team. If she loves the sport, she'll fight through it and see the opportunity she's been given. If she focuses on improving her motions, or flexibilty, or stunting, she can excel at those things and be in the front row for dance, or base a special stunt, or fly in the front row. Even if it's not a "focus" position, she'll still be able to enjoy herself if she's trying her hardest and finding a way to enjoy it.

Your arguments really contradict themselves. First you said if you don't have the skills, you don't make the team. Okay, fine, I get that. But then you said you aren't for getting rid of these athletes, and they could be placed on level 2 teams. If they truly have on level 1 skills, shouldn't they not be placed on level 2 according to your logic? Also, you mentioned how you lacked empathy in your first sentence of your earlier post, but now you claim you have empathy for those who give 110%. Which is it? And please, do we really need to get into the specifics of 100% versus 110%? I was not implying that 2 or 3 days of hard work in the gym is full effort. I simply saying that in the time a person spends in the gym they may be giving it their 100%. Not everyone can be in the gym 6 days a week. Things such as money for privates and being in the gym all those days, family obligations, school obligations might all be holding them back. You never know what someone has on their plate. Still though, it is totally unfair to assume if they do not do the things you mentioned that they must not want it as bad as others.

My answer to this should just be READ MY POSTS!

I never said to originally get rid of the athletes. My view from the start was to put them on a level 2 team and let them gain the skills they need. Read the 1st post I made in this thread about the subject. I said it loud and clear that they should be able to achieve level 2 stunting, dancing, and jumps within 6 months. There is nothing wrong with telling a girl in May that if she doesn't know how to base an elevator, decently complete the dance, and jump reasonably, by competition season that she won't compete. In other words, there's nothing wrong with setting goals for your athletes. Especially ones that have never cheered before. By setting their goals for them, they know exactly what they should be working to achieve.

Lacking empathy. Again, I said in my first post that I lacked empathy for girls who didn't work hard. I never said I lacked empathy for girsl like I, who did. You can't lack empathy unless you can put yourself in someone's shoes, and I can't find a reason to feel bad for someone who isn't giving it 100%. Nor can I find a way to put myself in their shoes. I can't find a way that a girl who works out every day she can(minimum 3 since that's what cheer would require if she was on a team) won't be able to dance, jump, and stunt after a year. It baffles me in fact that you are saying they wouldn't be able to. I don't expect anyone to be in a cheerleading gym 6 days a week, but everyone can run, do sit-ups, push ups, mountain climbers, 6 inches, and stretch as long as they live on earth for days they can't be in the cheer gym. Where there is land, there is a gym. If you watch tv, go on the computers, etc. you have time to work out. By choosing to do those things, you are choosing not to put in the absolute complete effort you could be. Heck, you can do situps and watch tv at the same time!

Tell me, have you ever tried to accomplish a new tumbling skill in two months (as you first stated before you changed it to one year)?

I'm just going to give you a little challenge: find out EXACTLY where I said this in the thread and I'll apologize for every single thing I've said. I'll shut up and in fact, I'll even encourage the idea that the division should stay. I never said that. EVER! I said I could probably teach girls to stunt, basket and dance in a month or two, but I never said tumble. I never would either, because that's just silly. I think I could maybe teach 1 fairly athletic girl to backhandspring in two months, but never a team of twenty. And I did learn to backhandspring in a month, perhaps that's why I think a qualified coach should be able to get at least 10 girls to do it in 6 months. (because 10 is majority which would qualify them as a level 2 team in tumbling) Which may I add, is the first actual time frame I stated since most teams set their teams in May and compete starting around November. The year was relating to taking a tumbling class, and 2 months was thought up in your own delusional mind.



And I liked what somebody said earlier in the thread. Natural skill progression in tumbling isn't necessarily the most beneficial for a girl who is 15, 16, 17, or 18. I can almost bet that most people would be able to learn a backhandspring before a backwalkover. I did, but I was 9 so I don't think that counts. I liked what somebody said about limiting it to smaller, local competitions only, too. I wouldn't necessarily be against keeping it if that was the case. And we should just get rid of it because there are other places for these athletes, whether it be a class at the gym or a level 2 team. By making a beginner class available at gyms for older athletes two days a week, and by making that the "normal" to how you start out in allstar cheerleading, it won't be that disappointing if that's what you're put in. Especially if it is a class of 10+ girls. You will get the team aspect while teaching athletes what the sport is all about. Plus, you'll be able to enroll girls that don't want to do allstars, but maybe try out for a school team or something in the next years. It teaches the fundamentals at a level a begginer athlete SHOULD be grasping them at. There's not as much pressure as automatically putting them on a level 2 team, but you still get a group of similar aged girls performing together. You could let them exhibition at a few comps, or at an end of the year team showcase to see how far they've come if you really feel a need for them to perform too.

 

[F!ERCE]

Because I even said half of this stuff? I may have the theory of "if you want it bad enough, you'll get it", but just about everyone arguing also have the unrealistic theory that tumbling is the only section on a scoresheet. There are four other sections that girls have a chance to excel in level 2: Dance, Baskets, Stunting, and Jumps. Simply because a girl gets a backhandspring doesn't make them a level 2 cheerleader. Just like the fact that a girl who doesn't shouldn't be immediately considered level 1.

Tumbling is exaggerated in chat here, but you mean to say that kids immediately gain solid level 2 skills in every other area as soon as they enter the sport? Sure, you could put one or two level 1 stunters in a level 2 stunt group and probably put up level 2 stunts (if you're merging level 1 and level 2 senior teams). But take level 1 athletes and put up 4 or 5 solid level 2 stunts (if it's a small team)? Probably less realistic. I agree it's probably easier to teach stunting quickly, but why rush basics when that'll only come back to bite you in the butt later?

I was never on a level 1 equivalent, but I can definitely say that within 5 months of starting cheering, my skills were probably on-par with level 1. I know I'm not an anomaly.

FWIW, I think level 1 is more essential for proper stunt progression than tumbling, really. It amazes me how many higher level teams have poor form in something as simple as an elevator...

 

[Eyes On The Prize]

can't we just keep everything the same... :\

Our sport would never grow if everything stayed the same. We'd still be competing in one bg group like the first all star teams did...

 

[NJ Coach]

Our sport would never grow if everything stayed the same. We'd still be competing in one bg group like the first all star teams did...

completely off subject, but your avatar is cracking me up. Is that a product of king?