All-Star Usasf Changes Program Definitions/classifications

[quitthedrama]

Gotcha. . Does that also work with pyramid scores / overall impression scores?

By the way the rules are written yes. There is obviously subjective parts to the score sheet, and one judge may think a full team has a better visual effect than a team of 12, but to me that is no different than a gymnastics judge who prefers long, lean and graceful over short, muscular and powerful.
If the governing body is going to create rules that allow for teams that don't max out in quantity to score the same as the team that does, then there is no need for a smaller division, especially one that is limited to specific gyms.

 

[Keep_Believing]

I tend to wonder if it effects scores at Worlds where everything is comparative. Athena Cats ( hope I have the right team name) was small for a medium team. They killed it all season. Looked great at Worlds, but did not place high. It might not, but curious if their small team size had anything to do with that.

 

[MissCongeniality]

This scenario doesn't directly correlate for me, ( less skills and less requirements aren't at stake here) but I suspect that's part of your point. Are you saying that it opens the door to make random limitations to championships? I guess I can see that... but cheer already has so many divisions that I feel like that waters down the impact of this concern. Though I can also see how you're saying that limiting who you must compete with is what you take issue with. I get that people don't like that, on principle. However, in practice, I struggle to see it as being a whole lot different than the fact that large teams have significantly fewer competitors than small teams, etc... and large programs have the opportunity to choose their divisions, while small programs really don't.

As for the benefits of the win, I really don't get that. Isn't the actual benefit for a program of the win a chance to increase business, and/or reputation which helps build business? For XS to get the benefit of building themselves out of their division shouldn't have any negative impact on other divisions? Or am I overlooking something?

Good questions about international divisions. I'm curious as to why they were excluded?

So let's go back to the Olympics analogy, and this time use swimming. What if suddenly the rule was that the only athletes that could compete in 50 meter freestyle are those whose countries have nobody competing in any other event. Or, from a team aspect, you can only compete in the 4x200 medley relay if your country has nobody competing in any other event. The winner/winning team still gets the exact same honors and gold medal as the winner/winning team in every other event despite the fact that they were swimming against a smaller pool (ha ha) of competitors. They are still an Olympic champion despite the fact that they didn't even compete against the powerhouse countries. How can you be "the best of the best" if you aren't even competing against every possible competitor?

 

[XtremeWpg]

If we really wanted to, we could say that anything other than Large Coed and Large all girl are "starter" divisions and shouldn't be at worlds.

We have a program of 60 kids. If we ever get to the point where we have 12 kids to have a worlds team, that would likely be the only worlds team. So we're supposed to deny those 12 kids going to words, with level appropriate skills, because the mega gyms aren't allowed to field an XS team?

I think it's dumb that XS is a division where you can only have that team and no others. I really do. But I think that portion of the rules is where the problem is, not with the number of athletes on the team

 

[MissCongeniality]

I think it's dumb that XS is a division where you can only have that team and no others. I really do. But I think that portion of the rules is where the problem is, not with the number of athletes on the team

agree!

 

[Ashley]

Would the mega gyms ever work together to form their on Varsity/USASF if they felt their growth was being too limited? What prestigious competition besides Majors has zero Varsity/USASF affiliations ? (If Majors does I am not aware of it LOL)

Majors is Jamfest which is now a part of Varsity. Champions League maybe?

 

[Keep_Believing]

Majors is Jamfest which is now a part of Varsity. Champions League maybe?

Wow! Thanks for the information.

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

So let's go back to the Olympics analogy, and this time use swimming. What if suddenly the rule was that only athletes that could compete in 50 meter freestyle are those whose countries have nobody competing in any other event. Or, from a team aspect, you can only compete in the 4x200 medley relay if your country has nobody competing in any other event. The winner/winning team still gets the exact same honors and gold medal as the winner/winning team in every other event despite the fact that they were swimming against a smaller pool (ha ha) of competitors. They are still an Olympic champion despite the fact that they didn't even compete against the powerhouse countries. How can you be "the best of the best" if you aren't even competing against every possible competitor?

Again, the correlation seems to be one on principle, which I completely understand. I just think it's a purist envisioning of cheer, which I don't actually see in action. There are tons of divisions that don't have the same caliber or quantity of competition in terms of worlds, or obtaining bids. And it would be hard for me to buy an argument that a recognized brand name didn't get preferential treatment in at least getting to worlds. ( Though I'll admit I don't follow Olympic trials closely enough to know what kind of politics go into qualifying). That being said, I also don't see anything wrong with expecting the governing board to maintain a rather purist approach to Worlds. I just don't think it disadvantages large programs in ways that small programs aren't already disadvantaged, if that makes sense.

I don't really feel strongly either way. I just think there are other aspects of cheer in general, and Worlds specifically that I would see as more of an issue than this division and the specifications set forth.

And being an XS World's champion would have caveats, which I think would be obvious?

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

If we really wanted to, we could say that anything other than Large Coed and Large all girl are "starter" divisions and shouldn't be at worlds.

We have a program of 60 kids. If we ever get to the point where we have 12 kids to have a worlds team, that would likely be the only worlds team. So we're supposed to deny those 12 kids going to words, with level appropriate skills, because the mega gyms aren't allowed to field an XS team?

I think it's dumb that XS is a division where you can only have that team and no others. I really do. But I think that portion of the rules is where the problem is, not with the number of athletes on the team

I'm confused, why couldn't you go XS with one team and only 60 people in the program?

ETA: oh, is that because you're with a franchise?

 

[ScottyB]

I kind of see Varsity/USASF in a similar light as the telephone industry years ago... The fact that the big guy owned all the infrastructure (the poles, the lines etc.) made it virtually impossible for the smaller guys to step in and compete on the same level.

What's funny about the telephone industry stuff from the past, is it is all almost a wash now that everyone has forgotten about the company changes, they're all reverting back towards the original.

Visualized: http://subjunctive.net/klog/images/2008/Att_history.jpg

Wonder if that would happen with cheer too? We'll probs never know!

 

[ScottyB]

Yes, the only way I could see it happening is if the majority of the Mega gyms were ahead of it. Hypothetically, they could form a board, make their own set of rules such as age grid, etc. If enough left together such as CA, CA, World Cup, Top Gun, Stingrays, Rockstar, SOT, etc. customers would follow.

I've said it multiple times before on this board: All Star needs to follow the NBA's history (National Basketball Association - Wikipedia

NBA team owners wanted more fans, money, and structure for their sport. They organized themselves and made it so they ran the show and so they received most of the profits (duh their teams are the main event in the NBA). Look at it now, games are played 9 months out of the year, is a true world sport, and the owners are still in charge.

 

[BlueCat]

If we really wanted to, we could say that anything other than Large Coed and Large all girl are "starter" divisions and shouldn't be at worlds.

We have a program of 60 kids. If we ever get to the point where we have 12 kids to have a worlds team, that would likely be the only worlds team. So we're supposed to deny those 12 kids going to words, with level appropriate skills, because the mega gyms aren't allowed to field an XS team?

I think it's dumb that XS is a division where you can only have that team and no others. I really do. But I think that portion of the rules is where the problem is, not with the number of athletes on the team

I think there are 3 independent factors at play here, each of which involve separate arguments:

1. How many divisions should we have at the "World Championships"? (or "do we need more divisions?")
2. Are the two XS divisions the most needed/productive divisions to add to Worlds?
3. Should we keep some types of gyms out of divisions to possibly improve the rankings for other types of gyms?

I think you can probably make fairly compelling arguments for #1 and #2. However, I am fundamentally opposed to #3 and having restricted divisions* at the World Championships. I can live with them at the hundreds of other regionals and nationals out there, but Worlds should be about finding the best teams in the World, without regard for gym size, tax ID, geography, brand strength, etc.

* I understand that there are restrictions based on age, gender, number on the floor, etc. Those are completely different, IMO.

 

[XtremeWpg]

I'm confused, why couldn't you go XS with one team and only 60 people in the program?

ETA: oh, is that because you're with a franchise?

Sorry, that was unclear. I meant if XS wasn't a division. We're a small program so for us XS would likely be the first level 5 team we could field outside of international divisions.

I felt people saying that it's an unnecessary division. It's not unnecessary, but the restriction that if you have an XS team, that's all you can have IS unnecessary

 

[XtremeWpg]

I think there are 3 independent factors at play here, each of which involve separate arguments:

1. How many divisions should we have at the "World Championships"? (or "do we need more divisions?")
2. Are the two XS divisions the most needed/productive divisions to add to Worlds?
3. Should we keep some types of gyms out of divisions to possibly improve the rankings for other types of gyms?

I think you can probably make fairly compelling arguments for #1 and #2. However, I am fundamentally opposed to #3 and having restricted divisions* at the World Championships. I can live with them at the hundreds of other regionals and nationals out there, but Worlds should be about finding the best teams in the World, without regard for gym size, tax ID, geography, brand strength, etc.

* I understand that there are restrictions based on age, gender, number on the floor, etc. Those are completely different, IMO.

Point 3 is where I take issue. We are a small gym. Right now, level 5 is a 5-8 year goal for us. But I don't think your gym should be denied an XS team so that my gym can globe.

In that case, create. D1/D2 worlds model. But if I'm going to coach a team that wins worlds in its current model, I want them to beat the mega gyms in the game, not always have an astrix next to their title.

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

I think there are 3 independent factors at play here, each of which involve separate arguments:

1. How many divisions should we have at the "World Championships"? (or "do we need more divisions?")
2. Are the two XS divisions the most needed/productive divisions to add to Worlds?
3. Should we keep some types of gyms out of divisions to possibly improve the rankings for other types of gyms?

I think you can probably make fairly compelling arguments for #1 and #2. However, I am fundamentally opposed to #3 and having restricted divisions* at the World Championships. I can live with them at the hundreds of other regionals and nationals out there, but Worlds should be about finding the best teams in the World, without regard for gym size, tax ID, geography, brand strength, etc.

* I understand that there are restrictions based on age, gender, number on the floor, etc. Those are completely different, IMO.

This would be a more compelling argument if there weren't already many gyms kept out of medium and large senior? I get what you're saying, just don't know how it is different?

ETA : okay I actually do see how it is different. But don't really think that it is different... if I could field 12 athletes in large senior, and play the scoresheet to win, then I'd find your argument more compelling.