All-Star Usasf/naccc Results Posted

Welcome to our Cheerleading Community

Members see FEWER ads... join today!

I think I am most shocked by the change in division by years. It passed to move Tinys to 6 and under Minis to 9 and under, Youth 12 and under, Juniors 15 and under. I don't remember anyone discussing this here on the boards when the rule was submitted, but I could be wrong. What do you think will happen long term because of this (if it does not get overturned)?

The biggest thing that jumped out to me:
Youth kids (age 12) can now be on youth and go to Worlds (senior is 12-19) so this overlaps again.
Junior teams can have 16 year olds on them (15 and under turning 16 throughout the year), or 6 year olds!!

I SO picked up on this the moment I read it. I don't think a lot of people who voted thought out the whole process. Some of this is ridiculous - not people's opinions, but the actual questions and votes. SO. Eliminate Mini 3, but raise the age to 9?
Eliminate Youth 5 - won't those kids go to a Junior team??? Crossovers restricted for a Small gym??? - that is certain death for some small gyms.
 
I don't think 30 is dependent on 28

Me neither. #28 has to do with how the levels map to the age groups. #30 has to do with the age criteria for the groups themselves. But that's just my opinion.
 
I for one am really sad about getting rid of semi coed actually... i think that it is the future of coed cheer and not large coed. If the gyms that are in semi now don't have enough boys now for unlimited then how are they gonna get enough to have 50% ? Getting rid of unlimited to me makes much more sense and would make semi thrive that much more!
 
i like the crossover rules for big gyms but its hard for small gyms to get that many girls.
 
What we needed was a little bit of If / then formatting. Writing out rule proposals like this so they dont compete with each other is very much programming. Same with all rules (and since I program all day thats why I have an affinity for it).

I suggest find the biggest nerd in cheer to write them out next time.
 
I for one am really sad about getting rid of semi coed actually... i think that it is the future of coed cheer and not large coed. If the gyms that are in semi now don't have enough boys now for unlimited then how are they gonna get enough to have 50% ? Getting rid of unlimited to me makes much more sense and would make semi thrive that much more!

I think you are confused. Large coed is essentially the same dynamics as Semi.
 
I read it that it was, because #30 says "IF" the age grid is changed. But if you vote "NO" to change it, then #30 doesn't apply.

At least that is how I took it, but it is very confusing.

that's how i took it as well.

Kingston, i know i've seen in previous threads that you wanted to make large senior cap at 30, but i never dug deep enough to find out what your reasons were for the number 30. i like that it's lower, but to me 32 makes more sense stunting wise...30 only makes sense if the groups have front spots (or is that your reasoning exactly--make the stunts have front spots?)
 
that's how i took it as well.

Kingston, i know i've seen in previous threads that you wanted to make large senior cap at 30, but i never dug deep enough to find out what your reasons were for the number 30. i like that it's lower, but to me 32 makes more sense stunting wise...30 only makes sense if the groups have front spots (or is that your reasoning exactly--make the stunts have front spots?)

The whole idea behind 30 is a lot of what Roger said on the video (yes, we chat sometimes).

Quick version, make the prospect of taking teams into large a lot more attractive so we have a lot more competition in large.
30 is a cleaner number than 32 (30 is 50% larger than 20). Yes its not divisible by 4 but I hate even numbers of groups (personally selfish). It bakes in 2 alternates onto the team (for the girls who dont do anything but tumble, say). And because you are limited to 7 stunt groups that means even a team with 21 and 5 stunt groups could theoretically compete well with a maxed out large.
 

23) Ethics

At ALL USASF sanctioned events, The USASF does not allow gym owners, their employees, and
their clients to recruit other gym owners, their employees, or their clients while attending any
USASF sanctioned event. Recruiting would include physically approaching them and/or handing
out any type of advertisement (for example, but not limited to, business cards, brochures, flyers
on cars, etc.) To be incorporated in the Professional Responsibility Code if passed.

I like this but what is the consequense if this is violated? I have seen this a number of times and my children have been approached at events by competing gyms.
 

23) Ethics
At ALL USASF sanctioned events, The USASF does not allow gym owners, their employees, and
their clients to recruit other gym owners, their employees, or their clients while attending any
USASF sanctioned event. Recruiting would include physically approaching them and/or handing
out any type of advertisement (for example, but not limited to, business cards, brochures, flyers
on cars, etc.) To be incorporated in the Professional Responsibility Code if passed.

I like this but what is the consequense if this is violated? I have seen this a number of times and my children have been approached at events by competing gyms.

It is completely un-enforceable. They should make it a statement, not a rule.
 
It is completely un-enforceable. They should make it a statement, not a rule.

That's what i thought. It would be nice if they could enforce it somehow. It becomes a "he said/she said" unless there is physical evidence involved. There is one gym in my area to whom this should apply.
 
Back