All-Star Usasf Cheer Rules Voting Results

[L5cheermom]

Question from the ill-informed: did you have to be a L5 coach (or 1-4) or from a gym with an associated level team to vote on the rules that were applicable to that level? Seems counter intuitive to have someone who's not involved in that level to have significant impact on that level's skills. For example; the level 5 tumbling into stunt rule - gyms with no L5 teams that are wanting to add one but just cannot come up with a group of athletes with the current skills are certainly not going to vote to raise the bar.

 

[Deleted member 15]

we just changed that(mid-cycle and no vote btw) so can we just leave the age grid alone.

I don't want to change the current dilemma of Do I push up the 15 year old to a level she's not ready for or do I hold back the 9 year old and make it even worse by bumping up the Sr. Minimum

The dilemma will remain regardless of the ages it involves.

 

[FamousMatty]

I may also be in the minority here but I voted no to all of them. I get the percentage increase idea from small->medium->large. However, I think the vast majority of teams in the country struggle to find four, much less 6/8 and 18 level appropriate boys. Look at the difference between numbers of teams from
Small to medium to large coed. I am not fully upset by the increase to 8 however I hope it doesn't get higher than that in the future.

As for the inversions, I definitely voted no to that. I am watching teams struggle with just the idea of toss hands to lib. I think we need to focus on the attempt to get coed stunting more legit before we start adding more collegiate level skills into the mix. I do understand that this rule would have applied to to all-girl and pod stunts as well, but the fact the rule would have opened up the door to seeing teams trying rewinds that really didn't have any business trying them scares me and was enough to make me want to vote no.

As for the level 4 rules, again I voted no. I think as it stands the two major score sheets out there (Jamfest and Varsity) require so much as is to max out that we don't need to make the skills needed even more difficult. I agree that if the rule had said "below prep level" I would probably have been a little more swayed. I don't see that much difference safety wise between a ball up and a switch up so think that could have been allowed. I don't think tic tocs are needed at this level.

My overall decision on a no vote to all was them same as a few on here already. Consistency is key and I would like to see the rules remain the same for awhile. It seems the minute we are able to fully understand the rules and perfect our athletes to compete under that set of them, they get changed again. If the worry is teaching progression...then stop changing the rules constantly and allow us to progress through those that are already in place. I have seen numerous level 3 teams do low to highs where the only connection is the backspot grabbing the ankle. I don't think the stunt progression from 3-4-5 is really that overly vast to where we need to adjust.

Lastly (just personal opinion) I would like to see full twisting mounts to prep gotten rid of in level three, and worded to only allow full twisting mounts to below prep level (spindles) when speaking of progression, I have found that the basing technique used to catch at prep and the top are vastly different, and most of my kids that love from senior 3 to senior 4 are those that struggle the most with catching full ups at the top. Again just personal opinion.

 

[ASCheerMan]

Question from the ill-informed: did you have to be a L5 coach (or 1-4) or from a gym with an associated level team to vote on the rules that were applicable to that level? Seems counter intuitive to have someone who's not involved in that level to have significant impact on that level's skills. For example; the level 5 tumbling into stunt rule - gyms with no L5 teams that are wanting to add one but just cannot come up with a group of athletes with the current skills are certainly not going to vote to raise the bar.

I'm not sure that your example is one that actually played out, but I philisophically agree with you. I don't know how many 'votes' were cast by gyms without Level 5 teams, but I do know that ALMOST all of the rule proposals centered around Level 5.

There may be a more accurate way to measure feedback. But I think the fact that only one proposal passed speaks to the point that we need to STOP making changes and let things stand still for a bit. There clearly isn't a real need to change safety rules right now.

 

[idrive]

Agreed - it seems to go without saying that it's a much needed step between L4 and L5 stunting for safe progression. Of all the rules to not pass, I'm most surprised that this one didn't.

Maybe the logic from people who voted against it was something along the lines of keeping current limits on L4 stunts = easier to field a successful team at L4. I don't like that kind of short-term thinking...

Agreed. It hinders the development of level 5 athletes mainly from a flying standpoint. I really believed it would have made the transition from 4 to 5 for these kids a little smoother and potentially safer as well.

 

[idrive]

I don't like that the number of males was passed to increase to 8. It is NOT easy to find even 6 boys with quality level 5 skills in this area, let alone 8! Heck some years we struggled to find 4. :-/ I'm hoping this is just going before the rules committee but that they at LEAST discuss this option with the gyms that currently field medium coed teams before they pass it.

I think all the gyms in our area struggle to find the 4 - 6 and when you do people are always trying to get them to flip gyms. But that's an entirely different topic.

 

[Cheer Dad]

No, new to the process this year: The Rules Committee pre-screened all of the proposals and made adjustments PRIOR to the public voting. Every thing that went to vote was already pre-approved, should it pass by the Coaches.

When the slated proposals came out to vote was there an explanation as to why they approved the options they did? I recall seeing the voting slate but no logic.

 

[CGAcheer]

The dilemma will remain regardless of the ages it involves.

The dilemma wasn't there last year. But the dilemma between deciding between a 9 and 15 year old isn't as bad as deciding between 10 and 15. What would really be bad is to be the standout kid who is currently 9 with level 4ish skills who thinks they'll be old enough to move up, but gets to do jr 2 for another year

 

[OVESQ]

I'm really frustrated with the change to Medium Coed, and I guess my frustration stems from a lack of understanding as to why the change was even proposed.

In the push to save some form of a Large Coed division, Medium Coed was created and both divisions have flourished. Large Coed increased to 12 teams in prelims at Worlds last year, as opposed to the 4 teams in Unlimited Coed in 2011. Medium Coed went to about 40 teams in prelims at Worlds, as opposed to 22/23 in Large Limited in 2011. So I guess I'm just curious to know more about the logic behind the proposal, because it seems like this change has great potential to harm Medium Coed participation.

I realize it is only a 2 guy increase, but the amount of the increase isn't the issue for me. My issue is the one that Mclovin has already pointed out - the increase in the amount of guys also increases what it is going to take to field a competitive team. There are a number of Medium Coed teams who currently don't even compete with the maximum of 6 guys, and some big name gyms are included in that. However, those gyms with 4-5 guys can still assemble a competitive Medium Coed team because of where the guys are capped. But in a division where the maximum is at 8, those gyms with only 4 or 5 guys now have to seriously consider if they are putting their team at a competitive disadvantage.

I think the move has the potential to diminish Medium Coed, and eventually push Small Coed to over 100 teams.

 

[CGAcheer]

The dilemma wasn't there last year. But the dilemma between deciding between a 9 and 15 year old isn't as bad as deciding between 10 and 15. What would really be bad is to be the standout kid who is currently 9 with level 4ish skills who thinks they'll be old enough to move up, but gets to do jr 2 for another year

Also with this, if there is a change- why would that not be put up for a vote? Vs 4 level 5 issues and 1 level 4? Age grid affects every gym

 

[12stepCheermom]

I'm really frustrated with the change to Medium Coed, and I guess my frustration stems from a lack of understanding as to why the change was even proposed.

In the push to save some form of a Large Coed division, Medium Coed was created and both divisions have flourished. Large Coed increased to 12 teams in prelims at Worlds last year, as opposed to the 4 teams in Unlimited Coed in 2011. Medium Coed went to about 40 teams in prelims at Worlds, as opposed to 22/23 in Large Limited in 2011. So I guess I'm just curious to know more about the logic behind the proposal, because it seems like this change has great potential to harm Medium Coed participation.

I realize it is only a 2 guy increase, but the amount of the increase isn't the issue for me. My issue is the one that Mclovin has already pointed out - the increase in the amount of guys also increases what it is going to take to field a competitive team. There are a number of Medium Coed teams who currently don't even compete with the maximum of 6 guys, and some big name gyms are included in that. However, those gyms with 4-5 guys can still assemble a competitive Medium Coed team because of where the guys are capped. But in a division where the maximum is at 8, those gyms with only 4 or 5 guys now have to seriously consider if they are putting their team at a competitive disadvantage.

I think the move has the potential to diminish Medium Coed, and eventually push Small Coed to over 100 teams.

I agree. I think small coed is going to get even bigger and that division is already huge.

 

[star1998]

wow....if i remember right the small coed division lasts all day long at world's as it is. small senior and small coed will need a separate facility soon. I think changing the coed number to 8 is dumb. Especially since the medium coed division has been extremely exciting to watch lately. The new rule's go and ruin a good thing.

 

[newcheerdad]

It's easy to find minor improvements to the current safety rules, but the best rules are the ONES THAT DON'T CHANGE. Our sport needs consistency and adjusting a bunch of the level progressions creates a steep learning curve for coaches.

Think about it this way: This is Year 2 on the current rules cycle and we gave out infractions to 35% of the teams at a 1 day event earlier this season--and that's with a set of rules that have been in place for over a year, already. Can you imagine what that rate would be if some of the rules were new?

This, times a million.

 

[Ashley]

So I looked up some of the data in my database, and I had the following number of teams listed in each division (it may not be entirely accurate).

Small Senior 5 - 104 (76% of all girl teams)
Medium Senior 5 - 23 (17%)
Large Senior 5 - 9 (7%)

Small Coed - 102 (65% of coed teams)
Medium Coed - 35 (22%)
Large Coed - 19 (12%)

Now I'm not saying that this won't hurt the medium coed division, but as it stands all-girl is WAY more skewed towards the small division than coed is.

 

[OVESQ]

So I looked up some of the data in my database, and I had the following number of teams listed in each division (it may not be entirely accurate).

Small Senior 5 - 104 (76% of all girl teams)
Medium Senior 5 - 23 (17%)
Large Senior 5 - 9 (7%)

Small Coed - 102 (65% of coed teams)
Medium Coed - 35 (22%)
Large Coed - 19 (12%)

Now I'm not saying that this won't hurt the medium coed division, but as it stands all-girl is WAY more skewed towards the small division than coed is.

I think saying that all girl is "WAY" more skewed towards the small division is somewhat misleading.

Assuming the data is correct, the only reason that the percentage point difference exists is the fact that there are 20 more total coed teams than all girl. The Small Coed percentage is diluted only by virtue of more total participation across the coed divisions, not because it is significantly smaller (based on the data, Small and Medium Coed by themselves outnumber all three of the All Girl divisions combined).

If you combine all six of the Senior divisions and do the same calculation, Small Coed and Small All Girl occupy an almost identical percentage of the entire field.

But at the end of the day, we are both saying the same thing - there are A LOT of small teams. I just fear that the Small Coed number is going to go up somewhat significantly over the next two to three years because it will be more difficult for teams to compete in Medium Coed.