All-Star What's A Normal Variance In Score?

Welcome to our Cheerleading Community

Members see FEWER ads... join today!

Lablover

Cheer Parent
Mar 11, 2014
368
414
same varsity scoresheet
Same routine
Hit- no deductions or bobbles

What do you think is an acceptable range in scores from one competition to another. I feel like 2-3 is the max; but I'm seeing and hearing about 4-5 on a regular basis.
 
Try 8-10, at least that's what I saw last year. There are two big sources of error from m what I've seen: the judges may just be scoring harder, or they might like/hate your routine more than the last judges. This makes it hard to know where you stand unless you're doing many competitions a year. Hard for a Maine based team. I think 2-3 would be acceptable as long as it's consistent compared with the competition (you may score a 94% and win first comp, then a 96% and still win the 2nd comp assuming you face identical teams).
 
Last edited:
Here's my beef. It's the subjectivity of it all. Like the above poster said, it could be one judge likes the teams routine better than another. It should be did the team hit the range of difficulty. I do understand the execution part. But that I don't think should be that subjective. Either they hit it or they didn't.

This also brings to question, are some gyms just more apt to score well vs others just because of their name?
 
Our last comp one of our teams went down 5 points. This team has constantly been competitive and within tenths of 2 other teams that we competed with all year. We won twice and we were usually 2nd the remaining times. This comp we were in group A and the 2 other teams in group B.

The 2 other teams were 3 points lower than we've normally been scoring, but were still within tenths of each other. That is justifiable if you know the particular comp judges harder. But we were 5 points lower than our 5 previous comps, and now 2 points lower than our 2 competitors that we have essentially been tied with all year.

Makes no sense what so ever. All varsity brands by the way.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 
We have major issues with this. IMO a 5 point swing in scores for a hit routine if similar quality is unacceptable. It shouldn't be happening, and the issue is subjective scoring. Even when you hit the high range for difficulty, it's up to a judge to place you in a 0.5 point range within that bracket. That really adds up when judges for whatever reason just don't like what you are doing, then they get to hit you again in execution and performance scores.

I think that at least the difficulty portion should be more objective. It should be like gymnastics where these base elements generate a certain base score to start from, then there are deductions from there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
This also brings to question, are some gyms just more apt to score well vs others just because of their name?

In my experience, yes. And those names effect how event producers are awarding bids too. Recently a team from fairly unknown gym outscored a big gym at a varsity branded competition by tenths of a point. The company used a "video review" to award the summit bid to the big name gym, because of who they were. They still cannot give solid reasoning as to WHY they went to video review when scores were NOT tied.
 
Here's my beef. It's the subjectivity of it all. Like the above poster said, it could be one judge likes the teams routine better than another. It should be did the team hit the range of difficulty. I do understand the execution part. But that I don't think should be that subjective. Either they hit it or they didn't.

This also brings to question, are some gyms just more apt to score well vs others just because of their name?
I feel as a small gym we start lower than the bigger gyms. Cheer will always b subjective.
 
At a recent comp we were judged poorly compared to a team who jumped 2 pts from day 1. The EP actually told our coach that " yes you were judged wrong, but we can't change it as it will make the judges look bad". Those judges cost us 1000s of $. Can't win in cheer sometimes.
 
I feel as a small gym we start lower than the bigger gyms. Cheer will always b subjective.
I agree. We only have 30 kids, and sometimes feel that the judges aren't scoring the same from gym to gym. It's almost like when they see "well known gym" step onto the mat their subconscious is like "oh these guys are good" and they automatically have an advantage. Vs a gym they've never heard of that only has 1 or 2 teams, they have to work their way up from the bottom.

We try and tell our kids that "they can't leave it up to the judges". Its a fighting phrase, basically saying if you don't do enough and give the judges room to make decisions then who knows what the outcome will be.

So if we go out and prove without a reasonable doubt that we are the best team on the mat that day, it takes away a lot of the judges power. But if we go out and are messy, falling, etc. Then we can't be upset with the outcome.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 
It is VERY subjective but I've been on both sides-- lesser known gym and better known gym. I will say this- the bigger well known gym really drilled technique technique technique into the athletes-- WAY more than the lesser known gym. The lesser known gym would "hit" but look sloppy while doing so. As long as the flyers stayed up, that's almost all that mattered in their eyes. I really noticed it once I left. When I was there though, I was blind to it. Also, the better known gym shared Day 1 score sheets with the athletes so they knew exactly what they needed to work on heading into Day 2- unheard of for our lesser known gym to do that. So, yes, it is a very subjective sport and I thought name meant everything, as well. However, in my experience, it doesn't mean as much as I thought it once did. And no, what I say above is not the rule- just my personal experience.
 
I agree. We only have 30 kids, and sometimes feel that the judges aren't scoring the same from gym to gym. It's almost like when they see "well known gym" step onto the mat their subconscious is like "oh these guys are good" and they automatically have an advantage. Vs a gym they've never heard of that only has 1 or 2 teams, they have to work their way up from the bottom.

We try and tell our kids that "they can't leave it up to the judges". Its a fighting phrase, basically saying if you don't do enough and give the judges room to make decisions then who knows what the outcome will be.

So if we go out and prove without a reasonable doubt that we are the best team on the mat that day, it takes away a lot of the judges power. But if we go out and are messy, falling, etc. Then we can't be upset with the outcome.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
I have found that in some cases you can be as close to perfect as possible and still be second to a sloppy "mega gym" team
 
It is VERY subjective but I've been on both sides-- lesser known gym and better known gym. I will say this- the bigger well known gym really drilled technique technique technique into the athletes-- WAY more than the lesser known gym. The lesser known gym would "hit" but look sloppy while doing so. As long as the flyers stayed up, that's almost all that mattered in their eyes. I really noticed it once I left. When I was there though, I was blind to it. Also, the better known gym shared Day 1 score sheets with the athletes so they knew exactly what they needed to work on heading into Day 2- unheard of for our lesser known gym to do that. So, yes, it is a very subjective sport and I thought name meant everything, as well. However, in my experience, it doesn't mean as much as I thought it once did. And no, what I say above is not the rule- just my personal experience.
This is the exact bias we are talking about. This is the assumption people (and judges) make about small gyms vs large gym that I feel influences the score, regardless of what ACTUALLY happens on the mat or what the small gym is actually doing. No doubt there are gyms of all sizes out there not pushing technique, but to assume that's true of all small gyms (which is what i see happening a lot of times) is unfair. Trust me, name recognition means A LOT.
 
This is the exact bias we are talking about. This is the assumption people (and judges) make about small gyms vs large gym that I feel influences the score, regardless of what ACTUALLY happens on the mat or what the small gym is actually doing. No doubt there are gyms of all sizes out there not pushing technique, but to assume that's true of all small gyms (which is what i see happening a lot of times) is unfair. Trust me, name recognition means A LOT.

"And no, what I say above is not the rule- just my personal experience."
 
Back