All-Star Can We Avoid Sandbagging Through The Athlete Tracking System?

[Valvalmom]

There's no giving up in my post. There is simply the acknowledgement that, for me, it's okay to lose.

Also? I don't agree with your last sentence, at least for me. I wouldn't pay for my kid to continuously lose because they're in the wrong division... but I would pay for them to lose if they're properly placed and they're having fun and being safe and learning about competition and how to work as a team to achieve goals and ... and... and all of the things you can learn from youth sports.

As hard as it is to believe, I don't care if my kids win. I don't. I want them to be and to do and to try and *so what* if they lose. They're going to try their hardest at other things in their lives and they're not going to win all the time there, either. Sometimes people will be bigger or faster or smarter. It's okay to lose - not to give up trying, of course, but if you try your hardest and still fail, it's okay. To me, teaching kids that winning is the best thing, so much so that you'd quit if you never win, deprives them of so many opportunities to see that life can be rich, even looking at the world from the second or third place podium.

But a level 3 athlete shouldn't be in the wrong level on a level 3 team. Why should she have to compete down to win...that's no different than the ones sandbagging. It becomes a trickle down effect across the board.

 

[Num1Stunta]

I don't think it will be harder to win, especially if the rules didn't change at all (HA!). The skills, and the perfection of skills should look like they do now. I do agree though, eventually all teams will be sandbagging. You will need PERFECT tucks and perfect everything else to just hang in the division. I think this is where small gyms will struggle and go out of business and large gyms will continue to grow (much like it is now).

My concern is for beginners... It's difficult to teach a brand new cheerleader just walking in the door to be good enough to compete on level 1. I think prep will be the standard to start in all star, and move into "travel" teams that compete in the regular divisions. Prep is one of the best things to happen to the sport to ease newbies in (IMO), but it's also hard to tell a kid "you simply are not good enough to compete on a regular team because you have an ugly backwalkover and can't jump..."

That's exactly right. We are most definitely doing some type of level 1 prep team this year. BUT, my concern is that because Prep is so limited in terms of how often they can practice that a year won't be enough to prepare a kid adequately for anything more than another level 1 team.

 

[Num1Stunta]

So let's say athlete tracking takes off and works magically and keeps every person in check the way it should. Do you think it's a reality to say once you compete a level you cannot compete down? Or is no crossovers enough to take care of this? Which is the better option?
There are a lot of issues with never going backwards, especially if the gym you are at has a limited number of levels/teams. We have kids that never lost a skill but because of age had to move down because we didn't have a team for them. I understand. There are kids with mental blocks, and kids that lose skills. I understand that too, but I'm thinking the initial idea doesn't bother me as much as I would have thought, especially as a very small gym. If you know that's what it takes, then you become smarter with your teams. Maybe your team of 20 becomes a team of 12 and 8 and you max out. Personally, I would rather have that then trying to make excuses for kids to be on levels they don't belong.

I've always been pretty anti-crossover, until I owned my own gym. I can see the benefits of having a kid cross up or down just one level. I had 3 girls this year who crossed from my J1 up to my S2 out of pure necessity (first year, small program), and they got to work on both basing and flying skills because of this. Plus they've progressed their tumbling much quicker than most of the kids because they have been getting double the conditioning and tumbling time. So, in that regard, there can be benefits to the athlete from crossing over. Maybe not eliminate crossovers, but restrict them to one level? And I would agree with restricting a percentage as well. This has all been discussed before, but no action has been taken to address it.

 

[SarahS]

But a level 3 athlete shouldn't be in the wrong level on a level 3 team. Why should she have to compete down to win...that's no different than the ones sandbagging. It becomes a trickle down effect across the board.

Your definition of "level 3 athlete" and another gym's may differ. A "level 3 athlete" to another gym may be one that has perfected all level 3 skills and is working on uptraining.

 

[The Sixth]

King may have touched upon what I'm thinking. It becomes a philosophical discussion on what should be on the floor. It's a given, that certain athletes will never reach level X skill. So rather than look at level 1 as the stepping stone for level 2 and so on and so on; or retrospectively level 2 as the motivation for level 1; look at all levels like 5.

5 maxes out the skills you can do, so what do teams do outside of moderately creative linking to separate themselves? They focus on perfection. So wny not treat all other levels the same? Look at your max skills for that level, and create a team that perfects them.

I will grant you that it's much easier for a large gym to field entire teams of similar skilled athletes. Maybe somebody else has already done the footwork in comparing all level results for something like NCA Nationals with regards to gym that might either support or not support that idea?

As ASCheerMan stated, stricter crossover guidelines would help. At least prevent the gyms who move a large percentage of athletes between levels.

 

[BamaCheerGuy]

Controlling crossovers will control this. Kids and parents want the levels! Coaches wants the banners! As a gym owner I say restrict the crossovers, I am a small gym, only allow an athlete to do two teams! It would stop the blatant sandbagging.


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

 

[5-6-7-8]

I have written and deleted 3 replies by now. Each one became a very wordy circular argument with myself.

I am stuck in that very blurry area between "being competitive" and "sandbagging." Eliminating crossovers would help, but not fix the issue (as I see it anyway, as I have less issue with one or two higher level athletes on a lower level team than I do with a team competing in what would be that blurry area.)

I agree with those who have said to worry about yourself (your gym) and that it is OK to lose. But at some point, it does suck to lose to a team that is as a whole maybe not competing in an appropriate level.

I think ideally, I would love to see an athlete registration system in which an athlete "declares" a level, said athlete can compete one level up or down, and once said athlete is in the "system," there is an algorithm that can validate the rating. That is the easy part logistically, the validation step would be difficult (having someone verify each athlete on the mat vs. who registered, etc.) Not saying it is impossible, as other sports do it, but it would be a HUGE shift for cheer.

 

[BamaCheerGuy]

I have written and deleted 3 replies by now. Each one became a very wordy circular argument with myself.

I am stuck in that very blurry area between "being competitive" and "sandbagging." Eliminating crossovers would help, but not fix the issue (as I see it anyway, as I have less issue with one or two higher level athletes on a lower level team than I do with a team competing in what would be that blurry area.)

I agree with those who have said to worry about yourself (your gym) and that it is OK to lose. But at some point, it does suck to lose to a team that is as a whole maybe not competing in an appropriate level.

I think ideally, I would love to see an athlete registration system in which an athlete "declares" a level, said athlete can compete one level up or down, and once said athlete is in the "system," there is an algorithm that can validate the rating. That is the easy part logistically, the validation step would be difficult (having someone verify each athlete on the mat vs. who registered, etc.) Not saying it is impossible, as other sports do it, but it would be a HUGE shift for cheer.

This could be arranged easily if we were all registered, photo included through the USASF. However until the USASF gets fixed then we are running in circles. Nobody wants to use the USASF paid membership, plus the clarification of what is a gym(which was a step on the right direction), who controls the USASF. It's a vicious cycle. There are many issues. First we have to fix the top "USASF" then we pyramid down. If not then the smaller issues will tear the industry apart. Then we see a split. It's not that far off. It will be interesting. It will show who is for the greater good of the sport and who is for the profit!


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

 

[thatgymowner]

What I think kinda stinks, is that there is a "small gym" portion of Usasf, and were supposed to be able to compete at small gym competitions to make it more fair for those of us that don't have 200+ athletes, therefor the athletes we do have are all on level appropriate teams to their skill (not implying big gyms aren't, just saying we have no choice) and yet in California for the entire season I only saw one comp that split it small gym and not divisions. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places. BUT just a thought, if more venues offered both categories, small gym and large, maybe the divisions would be more fair. Than the teams with solid level 4 kids competing in level 1, could go against each other... And the smaller gyms could have a more fair competition.

I am all for, it's not fair to penalize big gyms for having more kids. Or accuse them of sandbagging because they level down to win. At all! It's just think maybe if gyms with over 100 kids competed against each other and gyms with less than 100 went head to head we'd see a more fierce fight for those firsts. Rather than showing up to comp already feeling you're not gonna place because gym A with 20 teams there is prob gonna win. Do they always? No. Do they usually? Yes.

Just a thought. Not a definite solution.


Ashley

 

[Ld3319]

At one competition this year, we saw an entire 4.2 team come off the floor and walk back to warm up for their senior 5 performance.

Interesting, I know of a team that does the same thing.... I am thinking that team shouldn't exist.

 

[5-6-7-8]

What I think kinda stinks, is that there is a "small gym" portion of Usasf, and were supposed to be able to compete at small gym competitions to make it more fair for those of us that don't have 200+ athletes, therefor the athletes we do have are all on level appropriate teams to their skill (not implying big gyms aren't, just saying we have no choice) and yet in California for the entire season I only saw one comp that split it small gym and not divisions. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places. BUT just a thought, if more venues offered both categories, small gym and large, maybe the divisions would be more fair. Than the teams with solid level 4 kids competing in level 1, could go against each other... And the smaller gyms could have a more fair competition.

I am all for, it's not fair to penalize big gyms for having more kids. Or accuse them of sandbagging because they level down to win. At all! It's just think maybe if gyms with over 100 kids competed against each other and gyms with less than 100 went head to head we'd see a more fierce fight for those firsts. Rather than showing up to comp already feeling you're not gonna place because gym A with 20 teams there is prob gonna win. Do they always? No. Do they usually? Yes.

Just a thought. Not a definite solution.


Ashley

Sadly, one team I can think of that may be dangerously close to sandbagging IS small gym.

I understand a larger gym has more resources, but it comes down to the gym owners how they think is best to assign athletes to teams. And that's unfortunately the part that is hard to "police" since there aren't any rules to police.


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

 

[gymcatmomx2]

Sadly, one team I can think of that may be dangerously close to sandbagging IS small gym.

I understand a larger gym has more resources, but it comes down to the gym owners how they think is best to assign athletes to teams. And that's unfortunately the part that is hard to "police" since there aren't any rules to police.
When you reference a "small" gym, do you mean the one that is 75 or less, or a non-mega gym?

The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

 

[5-6-7-8]

An actual small gym.


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

 

[Ashley]

Similar to the softball example above, tennis has a dynamic rating system as well. Once rated by the "computer" after a completed season, a player is locked in at a level rating. A player can always play up, but not down. If a player plays up and finds him/herself winning, you get bumped up. (Win too much at the higher level and the person can get his / her matches DQ'd.).

I'm assuming you're talking about the USTA NRTP ratings? This isn't foolproof either though. My fiance (and obviously he's not playing in the youth leagues, so maybe it's different) is a solid 4.5 player. He's won 4.5 tournaments and plays in a lot of open tournaments. For some reason, USTA has his ranking has 4.0, either because of a mistake on the roster or because of a doubles league he played in not too long ago. He was recently discussing joining a 4.5 league, and the director of the league told him that he's technically listed as a 4.0, and would he want to play first singles in their 4.0 league (so basically the best spot on the team). It's basically sandbagging there as well. He could go get that first singles spot on the lower level and win most or all of his matches, or play on the higher level team where he belongs, but he won't necessarily get that "starting" spot or win all of his matches.

I'm not familiar with the USTA youth programs so I can't speak to the that, but this problem is not unique to cheerleading.

But also, it's hard to compare an individual sport and their rankings/level requirements to a team sport. I don't have a problem with crossovers - I think it's good for a kid to be able to be on a strong team while crossing over to a higher level team that isn't necessarily as competitive. But I do think that number of crossovers and how many levels you can cross between should be limited.

 

[5-6-7-8]

I'm assuming you're talking about the USTA NRTP ratings? This isn't foolproof either though. My fiance (and obviously he's not playing in the youth leagues, so maybe it's different) is a solid 4.5 player. He's won 4.5 tournaments and plays in a lot of open tournaments. For some reason, USTA has his ranking has 4.0, either because of a mistake on the roster or because of a doubles league he played in not too long ago. He was recently discussing joining a 4.5 league, and the director of the league told him that he's technically listed as a 4.0, and would he want to play first singles in their 4.0 league (so basically the best spot on the team). It's basically sandbagging there as well. He could go get that first singles spot on the lower level and win most or all of his matches, or play on the higher level team where he belongs, but he won't necessarily get that "starting" spot or win all of his matches.

I'm not familiar with the USTA youth programs so I can't speak to the that, but this problem is not unique to cheerleading.

But also, it's hard to compare an individual sport and their rankings/level requirements to a team sport. I don't have a problem with crossovers - I think it's good for a kid to be able to be on a strong team while crossing over to a higher level team that isn't necessarily as competitive. But I do think that number of crossovers and how many levels you can cross between should be limited.

Yes, that is the rating system I am referring to, and I definitely agree with the fact that this system isn't perfect either. But at least it prevents someone who is NRTP 6.0 from playing 3.0, which is what can happen now in AS Cheer. And to be honest, in either case, most 6.0 tennis players (or level 4 cheerleaders) don't even want to play 3.0 tennis (or level 1 cheer), so it is sort of self limiting. But it would be nice to know there is something in place to prevent the blatant abuse.

And I agree with using crossovers as well! One level up / down should be sufficient, as I get not every athlete will perfectly fill all level skills at one time (level 2 in ALL aspects), and crossing over is a great way to help the gym and the athletes. I have no issue with a level 2 team having a few level 3 athletes at all.

IF something similar to the tennis example were to happen (just to start discussion), a computer could easily flag a team of registered athletes for say a level 1 team that are a majority level 2-3 athletes. Or maybe a team is given an "average" level score based on the athletes on the team. There is so much that could be done if we wanted to / needed it, but we are far from it. At this point, take athlete A and ask 5 different coaches which level they would put him/her on...you could really get a variety of answers as everyone builds teams the way that is best for their gym (and that is totally dependent upon who tries out that year.)

Anyone have any insight on how other team sports are handled in this respect?