All-Star Usasf Changes Program Definitions/classifications

[catlady]

The USASF mission is to "provide consistent rules, strive for a safe environment for our athletes, drive competitive excellence, and promote a positive image for the sport."

Many businesses have subsidiaries, and many of those subsidiaries came about because the previous businesses were not profitable or completely failed. This can't be compared to a food product where everything comes out of a plant with the same recipe. Each location success or failure is going to be based on the coaching staff, athletes, levels provided and what that staff produces based on training. If "Most Known All Stars" only has 75 athletes at that location, they are at the same advantage or disadvantage as "Little Known All Stars" with 75 athletes when it comes to what happens on the floor. The USASF's job is not to control customer perception of what a brand means on the floor, but to insure what actually happens on the competition floor is fair. If a small location is 125 athletes and under, then the amount of locations should hold no bearing if they can't share athletes.
ETA: Corrected small gym athlete number

 

[CLynn]

I don't see it as a punishment, it comes across as a clarification of how the organizations within the USASF are viewed in terms of gym totals based on how gyms brand themselves across cities/states/regions. It is an evening of the playing field to the USASF

IMO that rule/clarification does have a punitive effect and I do not see it as evening the field but rather creating a new field where only some can play. And I actually think that is fine, but call it what it is...

 

[5-6-7-8]

So just randomly thinking…do the clarifications include a scenario where a mega-gym decides to open a stand-alone location (under 125 athletes, single location, no athlete sharing), but call it something else (and not something like 'Gym X' a 'Mega Gym family member.')

 

[OldskoolKYcheercoach]

holy poopballs batman, did Bernie Sanders take over USASF?

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

I am still struggling, intellectually, with what the issue is for a large gym that there is a division that they cannot compete in? I can't quite see why it would be punitive? Is it just on principle that there are disagreements? Is it simply USASF is making accommodations based on gym size?

To me, it looks like XS division has some definite benefits for smaller programs for sure, but some of the advantages seem to be a wash: Meaning what is an advantage for a smaller program in XS is an advantage for a larger program in other divisions. For example, having to compete against programs who can draw from other teams for bids is a disadvantage for small programs in most divisions, but wouldn't be in XS ( because you can only have 1 team). But I fail to see how it impacts the other divisions?

Or is it that there will be the same amount of bids awarded overall and thus there are going to be fewer bids awarded in larger divisions based on the need to "fill" this division at worlds?

I'm honestly asking, because I just don't see what the issue is, but can see that for some it is an issue? I can see that the USASF has a tendency to make haphazard fixes, which have long term consequences that were unforeseen... and I think this will be similar. But I'm curious what the worry is?

FTR: I suspect this is intended to be a "starter" division, but won't remain that way. There will be programs who only field XS and become powerhouses in the division. ( The above mentioned thunder stick program comes to mind.. and yes, they are D1 this year, but are also fielding an XS team... which I think they will continue to field in future years)

 

[quitthedrama]

@MomMomMamaMom for me personally, it is caving to the "give everyone a trophy" syndrome and takes away from what Worlds should be. Worlds SHOULD be hard to win, and you should have to compete against the best of the best to get to the podium. There is no "small country" Olympics. There are athletes from countries who will likely never medal, but they go, and they compete at their best ability. That is what elite competition should be.
With that said, I don't have a problem with a separate event for D2 senior level 5 teams - but don't call it the World Championships. Add it to the Summit or hold a separate event.

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

@MomMomMamaMom for me personally, it is caving to the "give everyone a trophy" syndrome and takes away from what Worlds should be. Worlds SHOULD be hard to win, and you should have to compete against the best of the best to get to the podium. There is no "small country" Olympics. There are athletes from countries who will likely never medal, but they go, and they compete at their best ability. That is what elite competition should be.
With that said, I don't have a problem with a separate event for D2 senior level 5 teams - but don't call it the World Championships. Add it to the Summit or hold a separate event.

I can understand this viewpoint, though I'm not entirely sure I see it the same way.. I'd just as soon see an XS champion as I would see the umpteen vanity competitors in the small and small coed divisions. But I do see that if the USASF starts to add qualifications to division winners it could be a slippery slope. What I mostly don't understand though is how it negatively impacts larger programs?

 

[CLynn]

I am still struggling, intellectually, with what the issue is for a large gym that there is a division that they cannot compete in?

While I am not expecting anyone to have sympathy for the growing pains of a Mega Gym, I DO think it is punitive for say a new hypothetical "California AllStars NYC" to not compete extrasmall if they desired. Clearly there is no athlete sharing, and if the only reason against this is because they share a name with a successful organization that sounds punitive to me!

@MomMomMamaMom for me personally, it is caving to the "give everyone a trophy" syndrome and takes away from what Worlds should be. Worlds SHOULD be hard to win, and you should have to compete against the best of the best to get to the podium. There is no "small country" Olympics. There are athletes from countries who will likely never medal, but they go, and they compete at their best ability. That is what elite competition should be.
With that said, I don't have a problem with a separate event for D2 senior level 5 teams - but don't call it the World Championships. Add it to the Summit or hold a separate event.

Agree with this 100%.

 

[Ashley]

I can understand this viewpoint, though I'm not entirely sure I see it the same way.. I'd just as soon see an XS champion as I would see the umpteen vanity competitors in the small and small coed divisions. But I do see that if the USASF starts to add qualifications to division winners it could be a slippery slope. What I mostly don't understand though is how it negatively impacts larger programs?

It means that small satellite locations of mega-gyms can't compete in XS, even if it's their only worlds team. It also means they can't go to D2 summit. If we're going to have XS Worlds and D2 Summit for small gyms (and whether we should or shouldn't have them is a separate issue), then I don't personally see an issue with that.

 

[MissCongeniality]

I can understand this viewpoint, though I'm not entirely sure I see it the same way.. I'd just as soon see an XS champion as I would see the umpteen vanity competitors in the small and small coed divisions. But I do see that if the USASF starts to add qualifications to division winners it could be a slippery slope. What I mostly don't understand though is how it negatively impacts larger programs?

I agree with @quitthedrama here. Worlds is supposed to be THE best of the best. Nobody gave the Jamaican bobsled team a special division because they don't have snow in Jamaica! With these "rules" re: the XS division it seems to me to be something akin to "bumper bowling" or like when my kids were younger and I would have to mark special eggs during the Easter egg hunt so that my youngest got his fair share.

 

[MissCongeniality]

While I am not expecting anyone to have sympathy for the growing pains of a Mega Gym, I DO think it is punitive for say a new hypothetical "California AllStars NYC" to not compete extrasmall if they desired. Clearly there is no athlete sharing, and if the only reason against this is because they share a name with a successful organization that sounds punitive to me!

LOL! I giggled at this. Check out the size of California and the distance between Livermore and San Marcos (and that doesn't even factor in traffic!).... California is a huge state! I wonder how many East Coast states (and then satellite gyms) could fit into the state. The reality is there could almost as easily be athlete sharing with NYC.

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

While I am not expecting anyone to have sympathy for the growing pains of a Mega Gym, I DO think it is punitive for say a new hypothetical "California AllStars NYC" to not compete extrasmall if they desired. Clearly there is no athlete sharing, and if the only reason against this is because they share a name with a successful organization that sounds punitive to me!

That makes more sense to me. Though I don't see that athlete sharing is the only advantage to branding, I guess I can see how not being able to build a program in a new market could be impacted. So I can see how the change in franchising rules could be seen as limiting that way. I think the old way of classifying programs was pretty hard to enforce though... but that's more speculating than anything.

 

[njallday]

So if tomorrow the FIG announces for the 2020 Olympics, they're adding a new artistic gymnastics event (for example: where you throw only one pass across the floor as difficult as you can), but you can only compete in this event if there are no other Women's/Men's/Artistic gymnastic competitors from your country competing at the 2020 Olympic Games. Winner of this event gets to stand on the same podium, get the same medal, and all of the perks that come along with being an Olympic champion. You're not bothered by that? At the Olympic Games, where the winner is hypothetically the most elite athlete who is the greatest in the world? But their governing organization essentially blocked the most elite athletes in the world from competing against you? Maybe you are the greatest at this new event, but you'll never really know because you didn't compete on a level playing field.

That's my issue.


Side note, XS could be a great division size to get international teams into the senior divisions since they have statistically fewer kids under 18... however a lot of those programs are already bringing IOC5/6 teams and have also been blocked out of this division. Shouldn't we want to expand on actual international competition at the world championship? No? Great.

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

It means that small satellite locations of mega-gyms can't compete in XS, even if it's their only worlds team. It also means they can't go to D2 summit. If we're going to have XS Worlds and D2 Summit for small gyms (and whether we should or shouldn't have them is a separate issue), then I don't personally see an issue with that.

I am missing the D2 summit connection? What changed there?

 

[5-6-7-8]

I do see both sides, I really do.

However, I have to say that XS isn't dumbing it down in the sense the kids can perform substandard level 5 skills. It really is a D2 scenario in the sense that some gyms just have a much smaller talent pool to draw from. Say a gym can field an awesome team of 10 girls with doubles, standing fulls, killer stunting…that team could compete small sure, but honestly they do so at a disadvantage. So they either add some level 4 kids to get closer to 20, or those kids leave for a program with larger numbers. Unless the score sheet can some how even the numbers playing field, I think XS serves a definite purpose.

If Cali NYC really wants to exist, couldn't they exist as "NYC Allstars?" That was why I asked earlier how the definition works. If Cali really wanted to own a gym in NYC that competed D2, could it as long as it wasn't called Cali-NYC?