All-Star Worlds- Saturday SCORES

[socratesofcheer]

I agree with the thrust of this. Except:

1. The change in performance order from paid last to random must have been announced in an empty conference room. I found out accidentally in March; the owners of GA, Cheer Athletics and CEA found out at the NAB meeting in April. Ordinarily, I would say those are 4 people that stay in pretty close touch with USASF information. If we didn't know, it's very likely others didn't as well.
2. The division split wasn't announced until the schedule came out. Not that I think it's a horrible idea or a great idea, but it wasn't announced in time for anyone to make a decision whether or not to attend Worlds or not.

Transparency is the key. We may all have disagreements on what the rules or procedures should be and we should fight very hard for what we believe is correct.

But once the rules are set; they should stay the same for the entire season. Make changes for the next season if needed.

I would think most would welcome this "change" after all, it did allow six more teams to advance to finals.

 

[cheeromgbre]

sooo... SCORES anyone?

 

[coach513]

My Team dropped a stunt and had a touch down. So I was not expecting them to make to it finals because the Small 5 division was so hard. It sucked but i came to terms with it. We spent a couple extra days down there played some golf and enjoyed our time. Wednesday morning we were flying back and while waiting at the airport i jumped on here to see what was being said about the weekend. I saw that day one standings and scores were up and to see my team in 29 with both divisions combined was a shock. And a hard pill to swallow. But it is what it is and look forward to having my kids rock it out at next years worlds.

 

[Knowcheering]

The USASF split teams just like YOU wanted.

I don't know who asked for a division split, but I'm surprised they believed it was a good idea. As people have mentioned, it's not so much the split that was a problem (letting the judges have a short break is good), but it was the fact that they didn't wait until BOTH groups had competed before determining the Finalists.

As a spectator, I did find that watching 30 teams at a time made it easier to keep track of who did what. After all 60 teams, it was clear that Group B had been stronger and that more Finalists should be coming out of that group. I think it would have worked out great if they had simply waited until both groups were finished before determining Finalists. Instead, the 29th overall team, who outscored enough teams to make them Finals-worthy, missed out because they were "unlucky" enough to compete in the stronger group. Remove the luck part and let the cheerleading do the talking! A Small Limited Coed team should be scored against every Small Ltd Coed team in the competition-- not a random half of them!

I would think most would welcome this "change" after all, it did allow six more teams to advance to finals.

Yes I agree that was good, as the division was very deep, but several teams in the stronger Group B were skipped over. There is no logic there. If we think of any Olympic sport, the thought of the 45th place athlete advancing to Finals instead of the 29th place finisher is absurd. In gymnastics at the Olys, roughly 100 competitors are judged in Prelims. The judges take a break in between groups. At the end of the day, the best scores overall advance to Finals. Nothing complicated and common sense! I don't really think it would be a disadvantage to be in Group A either... If you do well, you will get a good score that will hold up against teams who do worse than you afterward.

But I definitely DON'T think the answer is making Worlds any smaller. That would be avoiding the real issue. Plenty of the divisions are already on the smaller side as it is. And that 45th place team that got in Finals held its own and placed much better on Day 2. It goes to show you that there are a lot of great teams out there. The answer is not to get rid of them... The answer is to choose Finalists based on their overall ranking rather than a split ranking!

 

[F!ERCE]

Last year people complained because Day 1 scores seemed too "inconsistent" across the 60-some teams. Now, they're complaining when they try to solve the problem and split the division, yet don't want to eliminate any teams? (Not directed at anyone in particular, just a general comment)

There are either going to be some score inconsistencies on Day 1 or fewer teams attending. There really isn't much of a logical solution here...at least not one that I've heard yet.

 

[hopskipandjump]

Gotta say, I'm really getting very tired of this phrase.

What if we just say that every gym can only have one team because that would make everything so much easier except that it's probably all about the mighty $ at this point anyway?

What if we just say that music groups can only have a single CD every five years because that would make everything so much easier except that it's probably all about the mighty $ at this point anyway?

What if we just say that only one parent can work because that would make everything so much easier except that it's probably all about the mighty $ at this point anyway?


Cheerbizz, not trying to pick on you, but I'm exhausted with the perception perpetuated that somehow making money is a bad thing.

I don't think making money is a bad thing at all, and it should not be an excuse that everyone uses when there is an issue, but frankly having been a co-owner of a competition cheerleading company, the driving force is money. It has to be - there was 2 reasons why I went into that business - 1.) money and 2.) I thought we would do a better job and give back more to the kids. But every driving decision when holding a competition, from the local high school to worlds has to be about the money. Or you would have no one putting on competitions as that is a very very tough business to be in.