All-Star Usasf Independence

[12stepCheermom]

While I agree with the essence of your idea, there are some very glaring flaws in a structure like the one you described. Breaking the country into regions would be complicated if you want the number of athletes per region to be roughly equal. It also doesn't take into account regional differences in skill level. I would say, as a general rule, certain states/areas are light-years ahead of others, especially when it comes to L5 teams.

CoughTexascough

 

[newcheerdad]

You better believe if USASF is ever separated from Varsity, by Varsity, Varsity will have already put something in place to replace USASF to keep Team Varsity #1 in the world of cheer.

I don't have an issue with Varsity being the industry leader. All industries have leaders, sometimes leaders by wide margins.

I think the fundamental issue with the USASF is not entirely the fact that it's indebted to Varsity or that too much of its board is controlled by Varsity. It's the fact that there's too much corporate influence, period.

The USASF should be the governing body for the sport of all-star cheer in the United States. It should not be some weird mishmash of governing body and industry group. It shouldn't have more event producer representation than athlete/coach representation. If event producers want their own organization, great. If industry vendors want their own organization, great. But they should exert minimal influence on the body that governs the actual competitive aspects (rules, judging, etc.) of the sport.

The USASF should certify coaches, train and assess judges, determine the rules and sanction competitions. If you're telling me a uniform maker, a shoe company or even an event producer needs to be directly involved in those decisions - then sorry, I just don't buy it. They can be informed of those decisions, they can be advisors with regards to those decisions, but the ultimate decision should be independent of them.

 

[coachrah]

I don't have an issue with Varsity being the industry leader. All industries have leaders, sometimes leaders by wide margins.

I think the fundamental issue with the USASF is not entirely the fact that it's indebted to Varsity or that too much of its board is controlled by Varsity. It's the fact that there's too much corporate influence, period.

The USASF should be the governing body for the sport of all-star cheer in the United States. It should not be some weird mishmash of governing body and industry group. It shouldn't have more event producer representation than athlete/coach representation. If event producers want their own organization, great. If industry vendors want their own organization, great. But they should exert minimal influence on the body that governs the actual competitive aspects (rules, judging, etc.) of the sport.

The USASF should certify coaches, train and assess judges, determine the rules and sanction competitions. If you're telling me a uniform maker, a shoe company or even an event producer needs to be directly involved in those decisions - then sorry, I just don't buy it. They can be informed of those decisions, they can be advisors with regards to those decisions, but the ultimate decision should be independent of them.

There is a difference between industry leadership and what the industry does with their influence. What stands out is #15 on BlueCat's list.

 

[newcheerdad]

There is a difference between industry leadership and what the industry does with their influence. What stands out is #15 on BlueCat's list.

If the USASF was truly independent and recognized as the only legitimate governing body for all-star cheer, I don't think there would be any concern about decisions regarding their sanctioning of the "official" World's competition. Because at that point, the World's competition wouldn't necessarily be a faux-Varsity event, but would be an event sanctioned by the USASF that was bid out to any event producer that wanted to offer to host it.

I honestly think things like that are symptoms of the larger problem: too much for-profit, corporate influence within the USASF.

 

[tumbleyoda]

I don't have an issue with Varsity being the industry leader. All industries have leaders, sometimes leaders by wide margins.

I think the fundamental issue with the USASF is not entirely the fact that it's indebted to Varsity or that too much of its board is controlled by Varsity. It's the fact that there's too much corporate influence, period.

The USASF should be the governing body for the sport of all-star cheer in the United States. It should not be some weird mishmash of governing body and industry group. It shouldn't have more event producer representation than athlete/coach representation. If event producers want their own organization, great. If industry vendors want their own organization, great. But they should exert minimal influence on the body that governs the actual competitive aspects (rules, judging, etc.) of the sport.

The USASF should certify coaches, train and assess judges, determine the rules and sanction competitions. If you're telling me a uniform maker, a shoe company or even an event producer needs to be directly involved in those decisions - then sorry, I just don't buy it. They can be informed of those decisions, they can be advisors with regards to those decisions, but the ultimate decision should be independent of them.

The issue is not them being a leader or the leader. Tt is the amount of total control they have over the entire industry, including gyms and vendors that is the issue. Separate USASF completely and totally without sharing staff, facilities, $$$. Let it be the governing body that you say. But do it without Varsity. IMO that has never been in the plans and is only now being talked about because of the pressure being brought to bear through social media and some well known gyms pushing for them to change.

 

[tumbleyoda]

There is a difference between industry leadership and what the industry does with their influence. What stands out is #15 on BlueCat's list.

Which again was told to many that it would never, ever would happen. What EP would turn down $$$ for a gym to attend their event we were told? Yet it has happened, and will continue to happen until something is done.

 

[Future]

While I agree with the essence of your idea, there are some very glaring flaws in a structure like the one you described. Breaking the country into regions would be complicated if you want the number of athletes per region to be roughly equal. It also doesn't take into account regional differences in skill level. I would say, as a general rule, certain states/areas are light-years ahead of others, especially when it comes to L5 teams.

Other sports operate this way…and while certain parts of the country are better at a particular sport in some areas than others,,,,,it works itself out the higher the competition level goes…..history proves this point. Would rather see a bit lopsided competition that current system….

 

[coachlex1019]

Other sports operate this way…and while certain parts of the country are better at a particular sport in some areas than others,,,,,it works itself out the higher the competition level goes…..history proves this point. Would rather see a bit lopsided competition that current system….

I guess my point is, would we really end up with the very best competing against the very best if first place in one region doesn't stack up to fifth or sixth place in another region?

You bring up a valid point in that other sports have started with unequal distributions of talent across the country. I agree that our current system is flawed, but in redesigning it, we have to keep in mind that our sport is unique. What's worked for other sports might not work for ours.

 

[newcheerdad]

According the USASF website, there are 250+ gyms in Texas, and 15 in Delaware. It would make sense that you'd need to balance out regions in such a way that you don't have 500 gyms in one region and 50 in another - while still maintaining some sense of a "regional" competition.

But again, this is a sidebar to the bigger issue, which is the USASF's overall role in cheer.

 

[Ashley]

I guess my point is, would we really end up with the very best competing against the very best if first place in one region doesn't stack up to fifth or sixth place in another region?
[ /quote]

No, but that happens in every sport. Some divisions are weaker than others. The patriots didn't make the playoffs one year with a record that would have easily placed them in the playoffs in other divisions. It's just how it works. Maybe we can have some sort of "wildcard"

 

[newcheerdad]

If you look at the USASF gym membership listing on their website (which appears to be out-of-date, because I know there are several gyms that are closed which still appear), they list about 2800 gyms in the U.S. That number seems low, but I'll work with.

The idea is to set up geographical breakdowns which make sense. So in this example:

Region I:
Texas (265)

Region II:
California (237)

Region III:
Florida/Georgia (297)

Region IV: Alabama/Mississippi/Louisiana/Arkansas/Kentucky/Tennessee/Oklahoma(289)

Region V: Washington/Oregon/Idaho/Montana/Utah/Wyoming/Colorado/Arizona/New Mexico/Nevada (282)

Region VI:
Illinois/Wisconsin/Minnesota/Iowa/South Dakota/North Dakota/Nebraska/Missouri (254)

Region VII:
Indiana/Ohio/Michigan (294)

Region VIII:
Connecticut/New York/Massachusetts/New Hampshire/Vermont/Maine (234)

Region IX:
New Jersey/Pennsylvania/Maryland/Delaware (282)

Region X:
Virginia/West Virginia/North Carolina/South Carolina (239)

You would give so many bids to the USASF World/National/Summit/SuperChampionship of doom for each region, and that competition (or competitions) would be bid out to event producers, just as these regional championships would be.

If you wanted to weight these regions so that one region got more bids than another due to past performance, you could do that, too. So if teams from Region I consistently do better at the "national championship", they get more bids than the team from Region IX. (with no region getting fewer than x bids)

Is this perfect? No. But it's a way to do what's suggested above, and you can play with the regional distinctions and bid weightings all you want to get to the right result.

 

[12stepCheermom]

If you look at the USASF gym membership listing on their website (which appears to be out-of-date, because I know there are several gyms that are closed which still appear), they list about 2800 gyms in the U.S. That number seems low, but I'll work with.

The idea is to set up geographical breakdowns which make sense. So in this example:

Region I:
Texas (265)

Region II:
California (237)

Region III:
Florida/Georgia (297)

Region IV: Alabama/Mississippi/Louisiana/Arkansas/Kentucky/Tennessee/Oklahoma(289)

Region V: Washington/Oregon/Idaho/Montana/Utah/Wyoming/Colorado/Arizona/New Mexico/Nevada (282)

Region VI:
Illinois/Wisconsin/Minnesota/Iowa/South Dakota/North Dakota/Nebraska/Missouri (254)

Region VII:
Indiana/Ohio/Michigan (294)

Region VIII:
Connecticut/New York/Massachusetts/New Hampshire/Vermont/Maine (234)

Region IX:
New Jersey/Pennsylvania/Maryland/Delaware (282)

Region X:
Virginia/West Virginia/North Carolina/South Carolina (239)

You would give so many bids to the USASF World/National/Summit/SuperChampionship of doom for each region, and that competition (or competitions) would be bid out to event producers, just as these regional championships would be.

If you wanted to weight these regions so that one region got more bids than another due to past performance, you could do that, too. So if teams from Region I consistently do better at the "national championship", they get more bids than the team from Region IX. (with no region getting fewer than x bids)

Is this perfect? No. But it's a way to do what's suggested above, and you can play with the regional distinctions and bid weightings all you want to get to the right result.

The only issue I'd have with this would be what happened at the Olympics in women's gymnastics. I would hate for a stout team from one region...lets just say Texas... To not go to worlds because the number 3 team in some other region got that region's last bid even though they are no where close to the same score as the one from Texas who just missed it.

Of course without a universal score sheet or trained judges it doesn't matter anyway.

 

[newcheerdad]

The only issue I'd have with this would be what happened at the Olympics in women's gymnastics. I would hate for a stout team from one region...lets just say Texas... To not go to worlds because the number 3 team in some other region got that region's last bid even though they are no where close to the same score as the one from Texas who just missed it.

Of course without a universal score sheet or trained judges it doesn't matter anyway.

In my perfect "national" world, you'd have a bid go to each winning team from each division at each region. (or a set number of bids based on number of teams in the division, i.e., 1 bid per 10 teams) Each region would also get additional at-large bids based on their performance at the previous year's nationals. Let's say that winning a division at nationals gets your region an additional at-large bid for the next year.

So if the Texas folks cleaned up at last year's national championships of awesomeness, they could have not only the bids they give to champions, but a bunch more to give out as "at-large" bids to non-champions from other divisions. Yeah, you'll still have a great team left out from time to time, but that's the breaks.

 

[BlueCat]

Essentially, you are asking the USASF to have more control/power over the location/type of events that EPs are allowed to have. (Either that, or have the USASF run more of its own events.) Sometimes, you need to be careful what you wish for.

 

[newcheerdad]

Essentially, you are asking the USASF to have more control/power over the location/type of events that EPs are allowed to have. (Either that, or have the USASF run more of its own events.) Sometimes, you need to be careful what you wish for.

I'm asking an independent USASF to sanction events that will create a path towards a single unified championship for all levels. To me, the EP's job in this scenario is help facilitate that goal, by putting on the event, handling all the logistics and conducting the event in accordance with the USASF's rules and guidelines.

This isn't markedly different than the President's Cup that US Youth Soccer puts on - it doesn't preclude other soccer tournaments from taking place, but it's just the "official" event of the US Youth Soccer.