All-Star 2012-2013 Age Grid For Worlds Teams

[notimeforthat]

I also think with limiting tumbling gyms will focus more time on stunting. (to level 5 moms point) Gyms are businesses... time is money.... it takes a lot of time to train and condition atheletes for elite tumbling. Stunting can be mastered in a shorter amount of time. Stunts will be harder and hopefully execution and synchronized tumbling will be more prevailant in the future.

 

[xpressjag]

Well I could go either way on the 13 year old rule. I really really wish that the USASF would make the small division, truly small. teams of 12 and under are not the same of teams with 18-20 members. EP's can say all they want about percentages, score sheets, and fair judging but these teams are in a different ball park. High school teams currently do it, not sure why all star teams can't catch on.

 

[cheerheart4life]

Well I could go either way on the 13 year old rule. I really really wish that the USASF would make the small division, truly small. teams of 12 and under are not the same of teams with 18-20 members. EP's can say all they want about percentages, score sheets, and fair judging but these teams are in a different ball park. High school teams currently do it, not sure why all star teams can't catch on.

Woah 12 is a little too small! I'm thinking 16 like varsity or college teams

 

[xpressjag]

Woah 12 is a little too small! I'm thinking 16 like varsity or college teams

Well I have seen teams of 12 and under at many competitions. I think USASF should really look into it. Also I wish level 2 and 4.2 were broken into all girl and coed.

 

[cheerheart4life]

Well I have seen teams of 12 and under at many competitions. I think USASF should really look into it. Also I wish level 2 and 4.2 were broken into all girl and coed.

Oh I disagree with level 2. Coed level 2 is not much different than all girl. More divisions just gives more teams a chance to be in their own category alone to win.

 

[WCMAN]

Bring back Junior Worlds. Then you can raise Senior to any age you want. PROBLEM SOLVED.

 

[cheergirl09]

Woah 12 is a little too small! I'm thinking 16 like varsity or college teams

Here in Fl HS teams are broken into small 12-under, medium 16-under, large 20-under and extra large 26-under.

 

[yojaehs]

Why limit Sm Sr to 12? Sm Sr and Sm Coed are the LARGEST divisions at Worlds, it makes ZERO sense to change that number. High schools are broken down like that because there are MANY less athletes to choose from for their team. Here is what will happen if you make a Sm Sr 12 or 16, the "Large" gym will take their best 12/16 and then someone will want small to be 9 bc they still can't compete. I think EP's are doing the RIGHT thing for these small teams and breaking down scores to grids to TRY and be as fair as possible. Yes, there are some really good teams that have 12, 13, 14 etc. that are really good but is this a MAJOR issue across the country? Also, if we are going to talk about "business" it definitely makes WAY more sense to have teams LARGER than SMALLER!

 

[cheer36mom]

Just to clarify, there already is a bottom age on world divisions its 12. The question is whether it will be changed to 13.

I do however agree that they should probably have the bottom ages on at least all the senior levels.

yea i worded it wrong i know the bottom age is 12 i just feel that if its that way for worlds divisions why not make it that way for all senior divisions

 

[CGAcheer]

yea i worded it wrong i know the bottom age is 12 i just feel that if its that way for worlds divisions why not make it that way for all senior divisions

4 years ago there was a bottom age for sr, but there was also a sr open (no bottom age) for levels 1-4. I'm assuming there was a reason why we essentially kept the sr open divisions instead of the 12-18 divisions.

 

[JulieP]

First let me say that I 100% see your point, however I believe (like with the "World's" bottom age) I would like for them to stick to an age. If a rule is made (Worlds teams or mini level 1) it might hurt for a year but then the adjustment will be made. What is annoying is when you say "12 is the bottom age" so your PROGRAM makes the adjustments as well as the kids, then all of a sudden BOOM 13 is the age!? I just don't get it. I believe that every division should have a bottom age, for every "small gym" that can find a reason to keep it, don't forget, so can a "large gym". Forget looking at YOUR situation, look at the BIG PICTURE, what's best for ALL? I think what is best for ALL is to keep ages as close together as possible. I believe if your making team decisions for ONE or TWO kids it's not what is best for the WHOLE.

My senior 3 has 10 kids- 3 of them are actually senior aged, 4 are junior aged, and 3 are youth aged (it would be their last year on youth if they were on youth teams). Next year, I will have 3 that are senior aged and 7 that are junior aged. If the age is changed to 13, then I would have 3 kids that are ineligible for my senior team but that need to be on that team because of their skill level and our lack of a junior team at that level. Not to mention that my very successful team of 10 would become a team of 7. I understand what you are saying about looking at the big picture, but quite frankly, I am fed up with looking at the "big picture" as it generally means "little gym, let me give your kids one more reason to look at the big gym down the road". It's our second year of having a senior team, and we are trying to build our program. It's bad enough that I have had event producers screw my team for being small- saying that they're not impressive because there's only 10 of them, their dance isn't visually appealing because there's not enough of them, or, my favorite- "it's your choice to have 10 kids". It's a team of 10 with full team tumbling and 3 stunt groups (2 are single-based). Please don't put the nail in the coffin and change the age to 13. Small teams have an uphill battle with some EPs to begin with.

Also, my impression was that the bottom age on senior 5 is because we are trying to keep the young kids who may not be mature enough for a senior 5 from getting hurt because of their inability to mentally handle it. Just my impression- we don't have a level 5. I don't see the same issue with having younger kids on a senior 3.

 

[Rudags]

@JulieP

Her senior 3 team gives teams of 20 a run for their money. Just sayin

I was going to say the same thing!!!

 

[Rudags]

My senior 3 has 10 kids- 3 of them are actually senior aged, 4 are junior aged, and 3 are youth aged (it would be their last year on youth if they were on youth teams). Next year, I will have 3 that are senior aged and 7 that are junior aged. If the age is changed to 13, then I would have 3 kids that are ineligible for my senior team but that need to be on that team because of their skill level and our lack of a junior team at that level. Not to mention that my very successful team of 10 would become a team of 7. I understand what you are saying about looking at the big picture, but quite frankly, I am fed up with looking at the "big picture" as it generally means "little gym, let me give your kids one more reason to look at the big gym down the road". It's our second year of having a senior team, and we are trying to build our program. It's bad enough that I have had event producers screw my team for being small- saying that they're not impressive because there's only 10 of them, their dance isn't visually appealing because there's not enough of them, or, my favorite- "it's your choice to have 10 kids". It's a team of 10 with full team tumbling and 3 stunt groups (2 are single-based). Please don't put the nail in the coffin and change the age to 13. Small teams have an uphill battle with some EPs to begin with.

Also, my impression was that the bottom age on senior 5 is because we are trying to keep the young kids who may not be mature enough for a senior 5 from getting hurt because of their inability to mentally handle it. Just my impression- we don't have a level 5. I don't see the same issue with having younger kids on a senior 3.

I completely get where you are coming from, as obviously you know, I had a J5 team that had 12 kids on it part of this year. I agree that sometimes it was the "not enough visual in dance! Only 3 stunt groups" but after placing second at Cheersport in Atlanta and being close behind first - We were at an advantage. I only had three stunts to clean. I had 8 less kids than most teams to get legs straight in their tumbling. I had lower majorities to hit than everyone else. Cleaner transitions, etc. So while there were some disadvantages to having a low number - there are also things a large team could complain about that the smaller teams had an advantage!

 

[cheer4ever0522]

I completely get where you are coming from, as obviously you know, I had a J5 team that had 12 kids on it part of this year. I agree that sometimes it was the "not enough visual in dance! Only 3 stunt groups" but after placing second at Cheersport in Atlanta and being close behind first - We were at an advantage. I only had three stunts to clean. I had 8 less kids than most teams to get legs straight in their tumbling. I had lower majorities to hit than everyone else. Cleaner transitions, etc. So while there were some disadvantages to having a low number - there are also things a large team could complain about that the smaller teams had an advantage!

i thought we had an amazing season for only having 12! <3

 

[JulieP]

I completely get where you are coming from, as obviously you know, I had a J5 team that had 12 kids on it part of this year. I agree that sometimes it was the "not enough visual in dance! Only 3 stunt groups" but after placing second at Cheersport in Atlanta and being close behind first - We were at an advantage. I only had three stunts to clean. I had 8 less kids than most teams to get legs straight in their tumbling. I had lower majorities to hit than everyone else. Cleaner transitions, etc. So while there were some disadvantages to having a low number - there are also things a large team could complain about that the smaller teams had an advantage!

You are right on with this. It is a lot easier for us to clean, and it's a lot easier for us to progress with stunts and tumbling because our kids get way more individual attention from coaches. On a jam brands scoresheet- my team absolutely takes advantage of being small. We hit our quantities and max out without the same risks of deductions (less kids = less stunt groups = less risk for deductions). There are some EPs that have given us some trouble by not recognizing our quantities and instead focused on our small number. We will have to reconsider if these are competitions that we want to continue to include on our schedule.