All-Star Usasf Changes Program Definitions/classifications

[BlueCat]

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.

Your team of 12 has never been restricted from competing at Worlds, they just can't freely pick their division. By the same logic, you can't simply let Gym Tyme Large Coed 6 add a hundred Louisville alumni and compete small senior 5 with the same skills if they think they would be more competitive there. I understand that there are SOME restrictions on which divisions a specific group of athletes are allowed to compete in, but that is different than being denied the chance to compete against other teams of your size because your sister gym 5 states over gets a Worlds bid.

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

Your team of 12 has never been restricted from competing at Worlds, they just can't freely pick their division. By the same logic, you can't simply let Gym Tyme Large Coed 6 add a hundred Louisville alumni and compete small senior 5 with the same skills if they think they would be more competitive there. I understand that there are SOME restrictions on which divisions a specific group of athletes are allowed to compete in, but that is different than being denied the chance to compete at all because your sister gym 5 states over gets a Worlds bid.

I see your point and suppose that if you open CA rural America, then that team is prohibited from competing at worlds in one division. But nothing prohibits this satellite from competing small or small coed? Which has apparently been fine to assume small programs can do all along? Or am I missing something??

And if you have CA not so rural with 60 worlds level athletes, you have multiple options as to how you build teams and can hand pick your divisions can you not? You could do 1 large, 1 small.. 3 smalls... 1 med, 1 small.. etc

 

[Michael White]

This whole thing seems to me to be the big gyms are mad they can't globe in another category/worlds is being watered down, the small gyms who may never have/ are building towards worlds teams are excited they may finally have a chance at winning one globe, and small gyms that have established worlds teams that are somewhat successful are upset that they can't have a chance to pull a David vs. Goliath and will pretty much be mad they will possibly be beating up the gyms that may or may not have no business being at worlds. Is that right? All sides are going to be very entrenched in their ideologies, for example, I think it's great, but has the potential for abuse, and think it's a little silly for a large gym to be upset over it, but I can see WHY they might be.

 

[BlueCat]

This whole thing seems to me to be the big gyms are mad they can't globe in another category/worlds is being watered down, the small gyms who may never have/ are building towards worlds teams are excited they may finally have a chance at winning one globe, and small gyms that have established worlds teams that are somewhat successful are upset that they can't have a chance to pull a David vs. Goliath and will pretty much be mad they will possibly be beating up the gyms that may or may not have no business being at worlds. Is that right? All sides are going to be very entrenched in their ideologies, for example, I think it's great, but has the potential for abuse, and think it's a little silly for a large gym to be upset over it, but I can see WHY they might be.

There is no doubt that people's opinion is influenced by their circumstances. I am certain that mine is. I am also pretty sure that the mega-gyms aren't going to win much sympathy with their concerns. (Who cares if it is unfair? You are drowning in athletes anyway.)

For what it is worth, my personal worry isn't whether a theoretical team of 12 Cheer Athletics athletes can compete in the XS division at Worlds 2017. We probably wouldn't have a team in one of those divisions this season even if we had the option. I am much more concerned with 3 trends and the steps this takes in all of those directions.

1. Adding more divisions in an attempt to solve every issue. Some issues have been greatly helped by adding levels/divisions/gym categories/etc. However, there is a point when a lack of competition is more of a negative than whatever positive you gain from further splitting teams. Granted, 2 more divisions at Worlds probably won't mean anyone competes by themselves, but despite a supposed declining number of teams nationally, we continue to find ways to split teams up further. How long before the gyms with 126 athletes complain that they can't fairly compete with gyms of 700, so we make D1/D2/D3? What about teams of 8 athletes? XXS? Each division can make sense in the small picture, but what about the big picture? How many different ways do we need to split up the competition pool? How many World Champions can we crown before it becomes as silly as what "National Champion" means in our sport?

2. Changing rules to favor particular special interest groups. At Worlds alone, we have seen it with the "international division" scoresheets, the limitations on finals based on geography, and now we have special divisions effectively only for certain types of gyms. You can argue that the intent is only to help a particular subset of sympathetic gyms, but in many cases, the USASF is essentially pushing down on one side of the scale in order to raise up the other. I understand your excitement if you are one of the businesses getting a boost, but do we want USASF playing that role? How long before the roles are reversed and USASF is pushing your business down to help someone else?

3. Creating incentives for gyms to stay small. In theory, part of the USASF's mission is to increase overall participation in all star cheer. With seemingly good intentions, they continue to set up incentives for gyms to not grow. There are two big examples:

• The scoresheet bases difficulty on ratios to help smaller teams - coaches now intentionally put fewer athletes on teams.
• Gyms 125 and under have their own optional events/divisions - gyms stop registering all of their athletes, stop taking teams to sanctioned events, or worse - start turning athletes away to avoid being D1.

 

[MissCongeniality]

There is no doubt that people's opinion is influenced by their circumstances. I am certain that mine is. I am also pretty sure that the mega-gyms aren't going to win much sympathy with their concerns. (Who cares if it is unfair? You are drowning in athletes anyway.)

For what it is worth, my personal worry isn't whether a theoretical team of 12 Cheer Athletics athletes can compete in the XS division at Worlds 2017. We probably wouldn't have a team in one of those divisions this season even if we had the option. I am much more concerned with 3 trends and the steps this takes in all of those directions.

1. Adding more divisions in an attempt to solve every issue. Some issues have been greatly helped by adding levels/divisions/gym categories/etc. However, there is a point when a lack of competition is more of a negative than whatever positive you gain from further splitting teams. Granted, 2 more divisions at Worlds probably won't mean anyone competes by themselves, but despite a supposed declining number of teams nationally, we continue to find ways to split them up further. How long before the gyms with 126 athletes complain that they can't fairly compete with gyms of 700, so we make D1/D2/D3? What about teams of 8 athletes? XXS? Each division can make sense in the small picture, but what about the big picture? How many different ways do we need to split up the competition pool?

2. Changing rules to favor particular special interest groups. At Worlds alone, we have seen it with the "international division" scoresheets, the limitations on finals based on geography, and now we have special divisions effectively only for certain types of gyms. You can argue that the intent is only to help a particular subset of sympathetic gyms, but in many cases, the USASF is essentially pushing down on one side of the scale in order to raise up the other. I understand that if you are one of the businesses getting a boost, you are excited about it, but do we want USASF playing that role?

3. Creating incentives for gyms to stay small. In theory, part of the USASF's mission is to increase overall participation in all star cheer. With seemingly good intentions, they continue to set up incentives for gyms to not grow. There are two big examples:

• The scoresheet bases difficulty on ratios to help smaller teams - coaches intentionally put fewer athletes on teams.
• Gyms 125 and under have their own optional events/divisions - gyms stop registering all of their athletes, stop taking all teams to sanctioned events, or worse - start turning athletes away to avoid being D1.

Perfectly said! So much YES here! But hey, everyone will be a "world champion" "summit champion" "national champion" (well they already were) so happiness will abound - kumbaya - open my wallet.

 

[cheerspirit]

"Gyms 125 and under have their own optional events/divisions - gyms stop registering all of their athletes, stop taking all teams to sanctioned events, or worse - start turning athletes away to avoid being D1."

Unfortunately, athletes get turned down for different reasons. I'm aware of a D1 gym turning away multiple athletes this season to make their teams stronger; returning athletes with fulls being told sorry we don't have a spot for your child this season.

 

[Michael White]

There is no doubt that people's opinion is influenced by their circumstances. I am certain that mine is. I am also pretty sure that the mega-gyms aren't going to win much sympathy with their concerns. (Who cares if it is unfair? You are drowning in athletes anyway.)

For what it is worth, my personal worry isn't whether a theoretical team of 12 Cheer Athletics athletes can compete in the XS division at Worlds 2017. We probably wouldn't have a team in one of those divisions this season even if we had the option. I am much more concerned with 3 trends and the steps this takes in all of those directions.

1. Adding more divisions in an attempt to solve every issue. Some issues have been greatly helped by adding levels/divisions/gym categories/etc. However, there is a point when a lack of competition is more of a negative than whatever positive you gain from further splitting teams. Granted, 2 more divisions at Worlds probably won't mean anyone competes by themselves, but despite a supposed declining number of teams nationally, we continue to find ways to split them up further. How long before the gyms with 126 athletes complain that they can't fairly compete with gyms of 700, so we make D1/D2/D3? What about teams of 8 athletes? XXS? Each division can make sense in the small picture, but what about the big picture? How many different ways do we need to split up the competition pool?

2. Changing rules to favor particular special interest groups. At Worlds alone, we have seen it with the "international division" scoresheets, the limitations on finals based on geography, and now we have special divisions effectively only for certain types of gyms. You can argue that the intent is only to help a particular subset of sympathetic gyms, but in many cases, the USASF is essentially pushing down on one side of the scale in order to raise up the other. I understand that if you are one of the businesses getting a boost, you are excited about it, but do we want USASF playing that role?

3. Creating incentives for gyms to stay small. In theory, part of the USASF's mission is to increase overall participation in all star cheer. With seemingly good intentions, they continue to set up incentives for gyms to not grow. There are two big examples:

• The scoresheet bases difficulty on ratios to help smaller teams - coaches intentionally put fewer athletes on teams.
• Gyms 125 and under have their own optional events/divisions - gyms stop registering all of their athletes, stop taking all teams to sanctioned events, or worse - start turning athletes away to avoid being D1.

All valid concerns. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[CLynn]

Adding more divisions in an attempt to solve every issue. Some issues have been greatly helped by adding levels/divisions/gym categories/etc. However, there is a point when a lack of competition is more of a negative than whatever positive you gain from further splitting teams. Granted, 2 more divisions at Worlds probably won't mean anyone competes by themselves, but despite a supposed declining number of teams nationally, we continue to find ways to split them up further. How long before the gyms with 126 athletes complain that they can't fairly compete with gyms of 700, so we make D1/D2/D3? What about teams of 8 athletes? XXS? Each division can make sense in the small picture, but what about the big picture? How many different ways do we need to split up the competition pool?

2. Changing rules to favor particular special interest groups. At Worlds alone, we have seen it with the "international division" scoresheets, the limitations on finals based on geography, and now we have special divisions effectively only for certain types of gyms. You can argue that the intent is only to help a particular subset of sympathetic gyms, but in many cases, the USASF is essentially pushing down on one side of the scale in order to raise up the other. I understand that if you are one of the businesses getting a boost, you are excited about it, but do we want USASF playing that role?

3. Creating incentives for gyms to stay small. In theory, part of the USASF's mission is to increase overall participation in all star cheer. With seemingly good intentions, they continue to set up incentives for gyms to not grow. There are two big examples:

Yes, yes, yes. For whatever reason, USASF seems to think that creating more divisions and separating everything by size is the answer to all problems but I find this approach exacerbates those problems. If one main point of difference between Mega and smaller gyms is the larger pool of athletes available and ability to stack teams, I would support some sort of approach that prohibits crossovers for gyms over a certain size (with perhaps a narrow exception to allow subs in the event of last minute illness or injury) while allowing more crossovers for gyms under that size. Some other ideas have been floating around involving more strict athlete credentialing to avoid sandbagging...I think of it similar to the salary cap in the NBA or luxury tax in MLB, you make attempts to equalize the inherent advantage the Yankees have over the Royals, but then you have to let them play ball.

I would love to see D2 evolve more from a small gym category to an emerging gym category, potentially with looser team building guidelines, ratios on the scoresheet etc. The idea that it is a positive goal to grow and if ownership has done their homework, picked their market well and is given some time to market and mature, there should not be systemic reasons prohibiting this. The pressure then goes back to USASF (Varsity) to reduce exorbitant costs, travel etc. As I see it, USASF should not necessarily be in the business of increasing the lifespan of unsuccessful gyms due to poor management, coaching, or other market specific reasons but they should be setting guidelines where newer and smaller gyms can ultimately be successful.

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

There is no doubt that people's opinion is influenced by their circumstances. I am certain that mine is. I am also pretty sure that the mega-gyms aren't going to win much sympathy with their concerns. (Who cares if it is unfair? You are drowning in athletes anyway.)

For what it is worth, my personal worry isn't whether a theoretical team of 12 Cheer Athletics athletes can compete in the XS division at Worlds 2017. We probably wouldn't have a team in one of those divisions this season even if we had the option. I am much more concerned with 3 trends and the steps this takes in all of those directions.

1. Adding more divisions in an attempt to solve every issue. Some issues have been greatly helped by adding levels/divisions/gym categories/etc. However, there is a point when a lack of competition is more of a negative than whatever positive you gain from further splitting teams. Granted, 2 more divisions at Worlds probably won't mean anyone competes by themselves, but despite a supposed declining number of teams nationally, we continue to find ways to split teams up further. How long before the gyms with 126 athletes complain that they can't fairly compete with gyms of 700, so we make D1/D2/D3? What about teams of 8 athletes? XXS? Each division can make sense in the small picture, but what about the big picture? How many different ways do we need to split up the competition pool? How many World Champions can we crown before it becomes as silly as what "National Champion" means in our sport?

2. Changing rules to favor particular special interest groups. At Worlds alone, we have seen it with the "international division" scoresheets, the limitations on finals based on geography, and now we have special divisions effectively only for certain types of gyms. You can argue that the intent is only to help a particular subset of sympathetic gyms, but in many cases, the USASF is essentially pushing down on one side of the scale in order to raise up the other. I understand your excitement if you are one of the businesses getting a boost, but do we want USASF playing that role? How long before the roles are reversed and USASF is pushing your business down to help someone else?

3. Creating incentives for gyms to stay small. In theory, part of the USASF's mission is to increase overall participation in all star cheer. With seemingly good intentions, they continue to set up incentives for gyms to not grow. There are two big examples:

• The scoresheet bases difficulty on ratios to help smaller teams - coaches now intentionally put fewer athletes on teams.
• Gyms 125 and under have their own optional events/divisions - gyms stop registering all of their athletes, stop taking teams to sanctioned events, or worse - start turning athletes away to avoid being D1.

Your points do resonate, and I understand why they are valid. It's an interesting perspective on the direction for the sport.

And I truly do see why stakeholders in the sport would have an interest in holding the USASF to a standard that prohibits pandering to special interests/needs for a subset of programs.

What I would add, is that my "lack" of sympathy for mega-gyms is not " who cares if it's unfair they're drowning in athletes", but more that I don't see it as unfair, because they already appear to have the advantages that they think that these changes give to small gyms. That being said, I also understand how the role of the USASF is not necessarily to determine which direction growth occurs in the sport, which these rules do kind of try to do.

I might add that, an argument could be made that USASF should play a role in increasing access to the sport, and that small gyms do play an important role in this area, which I suspect to be part of the principle behind make some of these changes. However, I also think that limiting costs would be a more efficient way of reaching this goal than anything else, and of course that won't happen anytime soon, with everyone going to Florida every year.

 

[BlueCat]

On the flip side, I do see a huge trend/pull towards consolidation in the industry - whether it is Varsity scooping up event producers or the larger gyms acquiring smaller ones. I can't speak for the event side, but our experience is NOT that we are predators trying to greedily eat all of the smaller fish in the sea. We get weekly calls from gyms urging us to buy them or let them franchise. Some are willing to literally give us their entire business for free in exchange for using our brand. They feel it is the only way for them to stay open, keep their coaches employed, and keep their athletes from leaving. When we invariably tell them "no", it doesn't feel like we are doing the small gym community or the industry any favors by limiting our growth.

We generally try to do the right thing and be good for the cheer community. We have created careers for a ton of coaches with the benefits, job security, and chance for advancement that they wouldn't get unless they had "real" jobs. We have a ton of happy customers that, in turn, bring more of their friends into cheer. I think the vast majority of the "mega-gyms" are similar. I'm not suggesting we are always perfect angels or that we aren't driven to some extent by a profit motive. However, it gets old being made out to be the downfall of our sport and the reason so many of our colleagues are losing kids.

I honestly don't know all of the market factors causing some gyms to struggle. We certainly aren't the only industry where some businesses fail while others grow and succeed. However, it doesn't feel like giving Worlds banners to 2 large, but not-quite-mega gyms is going to make much difference, but maybe I could be wrong. Surely the issue isn't simply that we need to crown more World Champions. What are your opinions?

 

[ScottyB]

I honestly don't know all of the market factors causing some gyms to struggle.

I honestly think it comes down to not being prepared in knowing what gym ownership entails.

I am sure you didn't many moons ago. I consistently see so many coaches thinking they have what it also takes to run a business and then trying to open a gym, forgetting about the difficulties of that business ownership process on top of growing athletes for competition success. Props to you guys for figuring out a few of the factors for success (limited drama, being a business, working with customers, working with the industry)

 

[ACEDAD]

Running a business is difficult in all industries. I've been doing my profession for 30+ years and have owned 100% of a couple of businesses and parts of a couple of others. It's still tough. Our executive team is currently working through a program based on "The E Myth" books by Michael Gerber. The essence is that it's common for a superb technician of a service (e.g. a coach) to decide they would be better off running their own business (e.g. a gym). However, the business ends up running them because they spend all their time essentially creating a job for themselves instead of actually working the business.

I recommend the book(s) highly. Even for us old guys that have been doing this a while, it's eye opening.

 

[cheer25mom]

Bottom line to this discussion is that big gyms are going to be against extra small because it's bad for their business. It allows small gyms to field worlds teams, and keep their high level athletes, and denies big gyms another title.

Small gyms are going to be for it because it benefits their business. They actually have a shot at fielding a successful worlds team, meaning they can retain level 5 talent, and use it as a valuable recruiting tool.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MissCongeniality]

Bottom line to this discussion is that big gyms are going to be against extra small because it's bad for their business. It allows small gyms to field worlds teams, and keep their high level athletes, and denies big gyms another title.

Small gyms are going to be for it because it benefits their business. They actually have a shot at fielding a successful worlds team, meaning they can retain level 5 talent, and use it as a valuable recruiting tool.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I disagree. I don't think it is "bad for their business". What i think it is bad for is the "value" (i can't think of a better word) of a Worlds title. Now we have a "special" category that only a specific group of gyms is eligible for. How is that title equivalent to the divisions open to everybody? Sorry but you are not the best in the world if you don't compete against everybody (except oh wait...you can be now) and anybody.

I (and my kiddo has been to worlds with both a small gym and a mega gym) have no skin in the game and if they want to add a zillion divisions so everybody can be a "winner" so be it....but do not place limits on who can enter the division.

 

[icame2WERQ]

I disagree. I don't think it is "bad for their business". What i think it is bad for is the "value" (i can't think of a better word) of a Worlds title. Now we have a "special" category that only a specific group of gyms is eligible for. How is that title equivalent to the divisions open to everybody? Sorry but you are not the best in the world if you don't compete against everybody (except oh wait...you can be now) and anybody.

I (and my kiddo has been to worlds with both a small gym and a mega gym) have no skin in the game and if they want to add a zillion divisions so everybody can be a "winner" so be it....but do not place limits on who can enter the division.

But if there was no restriction on who could enter the division.. then there would be no point of the division..

I honestly wouldn't mind a Worlds where you could only bring one team.. and everyone competed against each other in either a ALL GIRL or COED Division.