All-Star 2011-2012 Usasf Update - Age Grids

[cheercrazees]

So how is everyone feeling about the new age grid/Division outlines?

 

[cheerinfo]

:rolleyes::oops::eek::mad: I think that may sum it up! HA! Not devastated by it, but certainly not thrilled with it. The "process" seems to have skewed IMO. But it is what it is, at least for the next year.

 

[King]

Curious as to opinion. If crossovers are integral to smaller programs and event producers, why didnt we start small and say 25% crossovers in level 5, level 5 cannot cross down, and level 1 - 4 can crossover as much as they want?

 

[cheerinfo]

Good question Kingston....my answer....because that would be logical, smart and good for the industry. We can't have that happening all of a sudden, can we?

 

[legexmom]

Curious as to opinion. If crossovers are integral to smaller programs and event producers, why didnt we start small and say 25% crossovers in level 5, level 5 cannot cross down, and level 1 - 4 can crossover as much as they want?

The only problem with not allowing a level 5 to cross down is that you also can't have a lower level "cross up" to level 5. With smaller gyms, sometimes you need athletes from a level 3 or 4 to "cross up" to level 5 to fill out the team. We only have one level 5 team in our gym -- it's a Sr. 5. Our alternates come from a Jr. 4 and Sr. coed 3. If they were not allowed to cross between levels to level 5, we couldn't have anyone fill in on the Sr. 5 when there are injuries.

 

[King]

The only problem with not allowing a level 5 to cross down is that you also can't have a lower level "cross up" to level 5. With smaller gyms, sometimes you need athletes from a level 3 or 4 to "cross up" to level 5 to fill out the team. We only have one level 5 team in our gym -- it's a Sr. 5. Our alternates come from a Jr. 4 and Sr. coed 3. If they were not allowed to cross between levels to level 5, we couldn't have anyone fill in on the Sr. 5 when there are injuries.

So keep the 25% limit for Level 5, but allow the levels to cross down. Does that seem reasonable?

 

[Num1Stunta]

:rolleyes: Personally, I'll always be on the side of dropping Large down to 30, but 32 is a good step. Other than that, nothing really changed for me since I am at a a gym with no level 5 teams. Literally nothing changed for the age ranges for levels 1-4. I was actually really hoping to see the maximum ages bumped up a year and the minimum age cap placed in ALL senior divisions.

Actually, I'd like to see minimums in all divisions... but that's just me:)

 

[King]

:rolleyes: Personally, I'll always be on the side of dropping Large down to 30, but 32 is a good step. Other than that, nothing really changed for me since I am at a a gym with no level 5 teams. Literally nothing changed for the age ranges for levels 1-4. I was actually really hoping to see the maximum ages bumped up a year and the minimum age cap placed in ALL senior divisions.

Actually, I'd like to see minimums in all divisions... but that's just me:)

I think minimum age 12 for senior and minimum age 9 for junior. Youth and mini don't really need minimums.

 

[legexmom]

So keep the 25% limit for Level 5, but allow the levels to cross down. Does that seem reasonable?

Yes, I think that does sound reasonable.

 

[bobbi]

:rolleyes: Personally, I'll always be on the side of dropping Large down to 30, but 32 is a good step. Other than that, nothing really changed for me since I am at a a gym with no level 5 teams. Literally nothing changed for the age ranges for levels 1-4. I was actually really hoping to see the maximum ages bumped up a year and the minimum age cap placed in ALL senior divisions.

Actually, I'd like to see minimums in all divisions... but that's just me:)

shimmy times a BILLION on this. I am OVER seeing tiny kids on senior teams. I am sick of hearing that small programs "need" this, and that it will hurt their program. I have a small program, a VERY small program, and you will never convince me that adding a 10 year old to my seniors is a good ethical or wise decision. PERIOD.

 

[quitthedrama]

The only problem with not allowing a level 5 to cross down is that you also can't have a lower level "cross up" to level 5. With smaller gyms, sometimes you need athletes from a level 3 or 4 to "cross up" to level 5 to fill out the team. We only have one level 5 team in our gym -- it's a Sr. 5. Our alternates come from a Jr. 4 and Sr. coed 3. If they were not allowed to cross between levels to level 5, we couldn't have anyone fill in on the Sr. 5 when there are injuries.

I agree with what you are saying - I am not opposed to crossing down one level, I can live with two levels (but I don't love it), and I have a huge issue with crossing down more than two levels. I think the 25% max rule and only crossing to one other team (maybe even have an exception where "small gyms" could have two other teams) would have been much more effective, and seemed to be more consistent with what was voted for.

 

[yojaehs]

I def wish they would have taken SOME stand on crossovers. I don't really see what they are doing as a step in that area but I think everywhere else at least they are trying. I won't be happy until there are as FEW crossovers as possible. Crossovers are a necessity to the industry but limitations need to be put on it to eliminate those that ABUSE. But hey we can all complain about something, right!?

 

[newcheerdad]

If the idea was about creating competitive balance, then why not make USASF athlete credentialing mandatory and require the majority of athletes are credentialed at the level of their team? So if you had a 20-person level 4 team, at least 11 of them would have to be level 4 athletes. I prefer that concept more than arbitrary percentage rules, which tend to hurt smaller gyms disproportionately.

As I said in another thread - the crossover rule that was passed by the USASF (can't be on any more than 3 teams) was pretty toothless, since the number of athletes it impacts will be really small.

 

[Deleted member 15]

If the idea was about creating competitive balance, then why not make USASF athlete credentialing mandatory and require the majority of athletes are credentialed at the level of their team? So if you had a 20-person level 4 team, at least 11 of them would have to be level 4 athletes. I prefer that concept more than arbitrary percentage rules, which tend to hurt smaller gyms disproportionately.

As I said in another thread - the crossover rule that was passed by the USASF (can't be on any more than 3 teams) was pretty toothless, since the number of athletes it impacts will be really small.

The gym credentials their own athletes so I would still be able to make any team any level I wanted. Until athletes are credentialed by an independent third party we'll have this problem.

 

[newcheerdad]

The gym credentials their own athletes so I would still be able to make any team any level I wanted. Until athletes are credentialed by an independent third party we'll have this problem.

Yes, you could, in theory, declare all of your level 4 athletes as level 2 and compete as level 2. But I doubt that would work in practice, since athletes with that level of skill would most likely end up going elsewhere.

The idea would be that you couldn't assemble a senior 4 team and then cross over that same team, en masse, to senior 2. But if I wanted to have a bunch of my junior 4 athletes cross up to senior 4, then that's ok, because I am declaring that my team is still comprised - mainly - of athletes who have level 4 skills. Same with gyms that have multiple senior 5 teams.

Ideally, you'd have a thirty party credentialing athletes, but I don't necessarily think you HAVE to have that in order for this to work.