All-Star Vent On Nca's Sandbagging Policy

[King]

Put another way if a skill is truly mastered (let us say a handspring) than any skills that can be performed above and beyond the handspring does not make the handspring any better. In your example Nastia does not have an advantage if her competition is performing skills they have also mastered. A handspring itself cannot be more difficult than it already is.

 

[newcheerdad]

Put another way if a skill is truly mastered (let us say a handspring) than any skills that can be performed above and beyond the handspring does not make the handspring any better. In your example Nastia does not have an advantage if her competition is performing skills they have also mastered. A handspring itself cannot be more difficult than it already is.

Unless I'm misunderstanding here, you're making a big assumption - that individuals competing at a particular level, whether it be level 7 gymnasts or level 3 cheerleaders, have "mastered" the skill at the level they're competing at. Is it possible that some of them have? Sure. But it is more likely that those individuals have not. They may simply be competent at it, or even good at it.

But you would expect a gymnast with far more years of repetition and training with regards to the back handspring, for example, to have perfected the skill in a way someone with less experience has not. I am no expert on gymnastics judging, but I would expect Nastia Liukin's back handspring to be a "10", whereas I would expect on balance a proficient gymnast to be something less than a "10".

Now if Shawn Johnson and Alicia Sacramone (and that's the extent of the gymnasts I've heard of) were also competing in level 7, then yes, it would be a fair competition. Those athletes are all highly likely to have perfected a lower-difficulty tumbling skill. My daughter has a good back handspring, but I wouldn't think she'd be able to throw the skill with the same technique or fluidity as these gymnasts do. So why would she compete with them in a level 2 competition?

The reality in cheer, at least what I've seen, is that most teams compete at the honest level of their athletes, if not a little above. Using athletes from a higher level, who have mastered skills their competitors may only be competent or good at, gives the teams that use high-level athletes an advantage.

 

[SharkDad]

Put another way if a skill is truly mastered (let us say a handspring) than any skills that can be performed above and beyond the handspring does not make the handspring any better. In your example Nastia does not have an advantage if her competition is performing skills they have also mastered. A handspring itself cannot be more difficult than it already is.

What newcheerdad said is that you are not exactly taking into account experience competing a that skill level. That could have a huge bearing in execution of a skill that both kids have theoretically mastered perfectly.

 

[tdittmar]

Agree with SharkDad completely with this one. Most of the time, ( not all the time for those truly gifted and naturally talented cheerleaders ) to be able to throw advanced tumbling skills means you have probably put more time into the sport during your lifetime. More time equals more experience. They have more experience with jumps, dancing, arm placement, expressions, and tumbling as well.

 

[cheerinfo]

But I think King is saying that if you have a team with all "level 3" kids (all the kids executing the highest level skills allowed in that level with good technique, etc.), then it doesn't matter who drops levels. If programs start putting more level 3 kids on their teams and less 1s and 2s, the playing field gets more even....

 

[SharkDad]

But I think King is saying that if you have a team with all "level 3" kids (all the kids executing the highest level skills allowed in that level with good technique, etc.), then it doesn't matter who drops levels. If programs start putting more level 3 kids on their teams and less 1s and 2s, the playing field gets more even....

That is true, if they theoretically hit their skills perfectly, 100% of the time. That doesn't happen and gyms don't stack their teams with "level 3 kids"

The reality is that you can only control this with an accurate athlete registration system and better skill level rules that address this problem similar to the example BlueCat stated. Other youth sports do this now with similar numbers.

 

[King]

That is true, if they theoretically hit their skills perfectly, 100% of the time. That doesn't happen and gyms don't stack their teams with "level 3 kids"

The reality is that you can only control this with an accurate athlete registration system and better skill level rules that address this problem similar to the example BlueCat stated. Other youth sports do this now with similar numbers.

If gyms don't stack their teams to win... would you say that national championships are won and lost at tryouts, then? If you pick your team correctly you set yourself up to win. If you don't you have a season that could be less than successful.

 

[SharkDad]

If gyms don't stack their teams to win... would you say that national championships are won and lost at tryouts, then? If you pick your team correctly you set yourself up to win. If you don't you have a season that could be less than successful.

Do you gauge your success by win/loss record or by athlete development?

 

[King]

Do you gauge your success by win/loss record or by athlete development?

Depends on the team. I feel like for the top 3 in any division at Worlds anything less than 1st is slightly disappointing.

For a smaller gym at NCA if they hit their routine and get 10th they might be ecstatic.

Either way if you built your team to win Worlds or to get 10th at NCA, is it not won and lost at tryouts?

 

[newcheerdad]

If gyms don't stack their teams to win... would you say that national championships are won and lost at tryouts, then? If you pick your team correctly you set yourself up to win. If you don't you have a season that could be less than successful.

That approach basically assumes that you level your team to the lowest common denominator. So if you've got a level 3 team, don't even think about trying out unless you've mastered your robhs tuck and punch front - and even then, if you don't have other skills you might be out of luck. And that works great when you have 800 kids in your gym and you can basically pick and choose which kids to put on what teams and level them accordingly.

But what about the gym that doesn't have 800 kids? You know, the small gym that competes senior 5 even though they only have maybe 3-4 girls throwing fulls. Should that gym be competing senior 4? Perhaps. But they're likely competing senior 5 either because A.) they think they can do well in other parts of the scoresheet to make up for lack of tumbling or B.) they're worried about losing the kids they have to the big mega-gym if they don't have a higher level team.

And we are worried about the phenomenon of the star kids going from the small gym to the mega gym, because a lot of people have endorsed the World's transfer rule. So we know that there's a competitive balance issue that we're trying to address.

Look, in a perfect world I agree with you. You create the team that gives you the best chance to win. But it raises the age-old question:

A.) Do you want to stay with the gym that has a lower-level team and wins a lot, but can't field a team that meets your skill level?

B.) Do you want to go to the mega-gym where you have a chance to be on a World's team, but you're a smaller fish in a bigger pond?

I'd guess a lot of kids pick B, which is why any rules about sandbagging, crossover, athlete credentialing or competitive balance in general have to take that reality into account.

 

[tumbleyoda]

What newcheerdad said is that you are not exactly taking into account experience competing a that skill level. That could have a huge bearing in execution of a skill that both kids have theoretically mastered perfectly.

The athlete that is experienced competing at the higher levels and at extremely competitive competitions usually adapt very easily dropping down a level or two compared to the athlete that is just getting the skill or just getting used to throwing it in a competition environment. To me this is what they bring to the lower level teams even more than the skills - the competitive experience.

But I think King is saying that if you have a team with all "level 3" kids (all the kids executing the highest level skills allowed in that level with good technique, etc.), then it doesn't matter who drops levels. If programs start putting more level 3 kids on their teams and less 1s and 2s, the playing field gets more even....

Some programs don't do this because of two primary reasons. One is they simply don't have enough true level 3 kids in every area to form a true level 3 team in every area of the scoresheet. It is not that they don't want to, or don't know that is the best solution. The only way they can form a team is to mix and match levels to the best of the skill ability level that they have. In many cases then it means they have to take some Level 2's or even some 1's. Since all kids progress at a different pace, the team may or not be true 3 by the end of the competition year.

The second is many times whether we like to admit it or not some of the parents don't want Suzy on a level 2 team even if that is her true skill level. For some it is ego and others it is the belief (whether real or not totally depends on the gym) that they will not be pushed to get their Level 3 skills on a Level 2 team since they are not needed for that year. The mindset is that unless the coaches need the skill Suzy wont be pushed hard enough to get it. So if you have enough Suzy's not wanting to be on their true level team and combine that with another local gym that will give into Suzy and make her a Level 3 when she is really a 1 and a 1/2 or a 2...

 

[King]

That approach basically assumes that you level your team to the lowest common denominator. So if you've got a level 3 team, don't even think about trying out unless you've mastered your robhs tuck and punch front - and even then, if you don't have other skills you might be out of luck. And that works great when you have 800 kids in your gym and you can basically pick and choose which kids to put on what teams and level them accordingly.

But what about the gym that doesn't have 800 kids? You know, the small gym that competes senior 5 even though they only have maybe 3-4 girls throwing fulls. Should that gym be competing senior 4? Perhaps. But they're likely competing senior 5 either because A.) they think they can do well in other parts of the scoresheet to make up for lack of tumbling or B.) they're worried about losing the kids they have to the big mega-gym if they don't have a higher level team.

And we are worried about the phenomenon of the star kids going from the small gym to the mega gym, because a lot of people have endorsed the World's transfer rule. So we know that there's a competitive balance issue that we're trying to address.

Look, in a perfect world I agree with you. You create the team that gives you the best chance to win. But it raises the age-old question:

A.) Do you want to stay with the gym that has a lower-level team and wins a lot, but can't field a team that meets your skill level?

B.) Do you want to go to the mega-gym where you have a chance to be on a World's team, but you're a smaller fish in a bigger pond?

I'd guess a lot of kids pick B, which is why any rules about sandbagging, crossover, athlete credentialing or competitive balance in general have to take that reality into account.

The athlete that is experienced competing at the higher levels and at extremely competitive competitions usually adapt very easily dropping down a level or two compared to the athlete that is just getting the skill or just getting used to throwing it in a competition environment. To me this is what they bring to the lower level teams even more than the skills - the competitive experience.



Some programs don't do this because of two primary reasons. One is they simply don't have enough true level 3 kids in every area to form a true level 3 team in every area of the scoresheet. It is not that they don't want to, or don't know that is the best solution. The only way they can form a team is to mix and match levels to the best of the skill ability level that they have. In many cases then it means they have to take some Level 2's or even some 1's. Since all kids progress at a different pace, the team may or not be true 3 by the end of the competition year.

The second is many times whether we like to admit it or not some of the parents don't want Suzy on a level 2 team even if that is her true skill level. For some it is ego and others it is the belief (whether real or not totally depends on the gym) that they will not be pushed to get their Level 3 skills on a Level 2 team since they are not needed for that year. The mindset is that unless the coaches need the skill Suzy wont be pushed hard enough to get it. So if you have enough Suzy's not wanting to be on their true level team and combine that with another local gym that will give into Suzy and make her a Level 3 when she is really a 1 and a 1/2 or a 2...

If larger gyms start picking their teams this way, is that bad? If they pick so that their lowest common denominator is a master at the level they are competing is that cheating?

 

[CGAcheer]

If larger gyms start picking their teams this way, is that bad? If they pick so that their lowest common denominator is a master at the level they are competing is that cheating?

That is what we, a not so large gym, do with the occasional exception

 

[tumbleyoda]

...But what about the gym that doesn't have 800 kids? You know, the small gym that competes senior 5 even though they only have maybe 3-4 girls throwing fulls. Should that gym be competing senior 4? Perhaps. But they're likely competing senior 5 either because A.) they think they can do well in other parts of the scoresheet to make up for lack of tumbling or B.) they're worried about losing the kids they have to the big mega-gym if they don't have a higher level team.

Or C.) They have a long range gym plan and if they at least start competing Senior 5 now, they retain some athletes now and show others that there will be place for them to compete when they get the skills. So they are willing to take the hit and the ridicule from those who say they should be Level 4 now, looking forward to that day when they are named as contenders at every competition and favorites at some.

 

[tumbleyoda]

If larger gyms start picking their teams this way, is that bad? If they pick so that their lowest common denominator is a master at the level they are competing is that cheating?

No it is not bad at all and is not cheating. Perhaps even ideal. But every gym in the country simply does not do this and it is for more reasons than they them simply not wanting each and every team to be true level. Sometimes it is simply numbers; other times there are other dynamics in play.