All-Star Champions League Preseason Rankings

[wishfulthinking]

TGLC is probably #1, not really surprised at that. What surprises me is that Senior Elite is ranked higher than Stars and Panthers? Panthers have probably been the most consistent LAG ever since they came back to the division 4-5 years ago, despite not winning Worlds, at least globing every year and winning some NCA titles too.

But no Cali Black Ops who had a phenomenal season winning NCA and Worlds?

And no hard feelings to Bombshells (absolutely loved them in 2017), but I would place them lower on the list, just because this was their first time globing at Worlds.

Also, only 1 international team, and they're #6?

This list in general: :confused::confused:

 

[UCFKnights07]

TGLC is probably #1, not really surprised at that. What surprises me is that Senior Elite is ranked higher than Stars and Panthers? Panthers have probably been the most consistent LAG ever since they came back to the division 4-5 years ago, despite not winning Worlds, at least globing every year and winning some NCA titles too.

But no Cali Black Ops who had a phenomenal season winning NCA and Worlds?

And no hard feelings to Bombshells (absolutely loved them in 2017), but I would place them lower on the list, just because this was their first time globing at Worlds.

Also, only 1 international team, and they're #6?

This list in general: :confused::confused:

yes but three of the five guidelines are basically based off new athletes, returning athletes, and athletes aging out. TGLC makes the most sense based off that alone.

 

[Ems]

I don't understand this at all. If they're going to numerically rank teams, I wish they would explain how their criteria works. You could easily quantify past success, but the other four seem a bit far fetched.
The three about athletes seems so hard to quantify. First, are gyms really giving this information up? Second, are they distinguishing these athletes? For example, what if an aging out athlete with only a running full is replaced by a new athlete with a specialty to double? Or vice versa?
Third, how can you factor in open teams when aging out isn't a factor? (I guess ignore them because only one is on the list?) Are any of these considered detrimental?
With tumbling difficulty, I guess they're talking about past routines otherwise we're talking about skills of individual athletes which really falls into what I mentioned above. Is someone on each team really reporting to the Champions League, "Oh, last year we had only half of our team with running doubles, but now we have 75%!"
I dunno... until they reveal an actual system of ranking, to me it just feels phony.

 

[CatFan22]

The three about athletes seems so hard to quantify. First, are gyms really giving this information up? Second, are they distinguishing these athletes? For example, what if an aging out athlete with only a running full is replaced by a new athlete with a specialty to double?

There is no way they've acquired the full rosters for all these teams (past or present). And they would have no way of knowing what skills those athletes on the teams currently have. That's what makes their "criteria" and the ranking so absurd.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Stephie1012]

I just saw a post they're going to rank lower level teams by region. It says they're using past performances, new athletes, returning athletes, athletes aging out, and tumbling difficulty to determine the ranks.
Seems like a huge undertaking, are they going to contact the gyms to ask these questions?

 

[mncheerqueen]

I highly doubt gyms are giving them "true" info too.. Like if it were me I'd hype my athletes up to get a higher rank and scare other teams ;)

 

[Keep_Believing]

Maybe Bombshells has the whole team 100% returning!

 

[icequeen]

Maybe Bombshells has the whole team 100% returning!

Yea but one world title over a team that's has 5, won this year, and consistently in the top 3 doesn't make sense.

 

[Lablover]

I'm wondering if part of the placement was dictated by how much of the criteria they knew for that particular team. If they didn't have a lot of the information they just placed them lower on the rankings?

 

[njallday]

Assuming they tag CU on each post because he is a part of this... y'all know he is heavily biased with clear favorites. It's like Whose Line where, "the rules are made up and the points don't matter." Really, guys, stop getting upset. And someone remember at the end of the season to take this list compared to actual rankings how teams do this season and laugh at it. Thanks.

 

[icequeen]

Probably the only spot I agree with them on 1. TGLC

 

[FloridaFlya]

Assuming they tag CU on each post because he is a part of this... y'all know he is heavily biased with clear favorites. It's like Whose Line where, "the rules are made up and the points don't matter." Really, guys, stop getting upset. And someone remember at the end of the season to take this list compared to actual rankings how teams do this season and laugh at it. Thanks.

THIS!!!!

I just hope people realize champions league got people irritated and confused over this, while they gained hundreds of followers on social media.

We fed into everything they wanted

ETA: last statement was mild sarcasm

 

[Teacher Mom]

TGLC is probably #1, not really surprised at that. What surprises me is that Senior Elite is ranked higher than Stars and Panthers? Panthers have probably been the most consistent LAG ever since they came back to the division 4-5 years ago, despite not winning Worlds, at least globing every year and winning some NCA titles too.

But no Cali Black Ops who had a phenomenal season winning NCA and Worlds?

And no hard feelings to Bombshells (absolutely loved them in 2017), but I would place them lower on the list, just because this was their first time globing at Worlds.

Also, only 1 international team, and they're #6?

This list in general: :confused::confused:

Totally agree. And Bombshells will probably rule Medium again as only a few are going on to college but...
I'm curious how this gym keeps boys. I'd be pissed if they made their best team all girl after them all being on C5. I wonder how many boys moved on due to this.

 

[Pebbles49]

I was surprise that Stars finished ranking #7, especially since their past performance eclipses all the girls teams that ranked higher, such as, SE and particularly, ECE Bombshells... But after I looked at pictures of this year Stars team, it appears they had an huge turnover of athletes and very few of the veterans from their Worlds and NCA winning team returned and so this may have accounted to their ranking... but only wondering??

 

[quitthedrama]

Totally agree. And Bombshells will probably rule Medium again as only a few are going on to college but...
I'm curious how this gym keeps boys. I'd be pissed if they made their best team all girl after them all being on C5. I wonder how many boys moved on due to this.

:confused:..... it's no different than your beloved Aces moving to IOC5. A gym does what they feel is best to be as competitive in a division as they can be. Coed divisions can be hard to max in stunt difficulty if the males are young - it puts them at a disadvantage over males who are on a college coed team and are also competing all star - something that happens a lot in the coed divisions.
Don't worry about our C5 kids. They're just fine and look amazing. It's going to be a great year for them.