Changes in the Big D.

[CGAcheer]

http://www.youtube.com/user/AllStar0Rules#p/a/u/2/CPvz_ejDqdM

Rules process according to Les

 

[SharkDad]

Ok, I didn't think so. So the meeting where "it passed" was the USASF Rules Committee that is meeting today. I didn't realize they were meeting today. So he's saying the rules committee is already approving something before any USASF members get to vote on it and that's where your comment about "conspiracy theories" comes into play. Wow, I can definitely see where this could get hairy...

To be clear so that others understand: There was no meeting where anything was passed yet.

 

[Mclovin]

Thanks Acedad and Sharkdad for clarifying. So we can all relax and wait for the process to take place in January. Proposals have been made, committees have met and discussed, but that's it. :)

 

[allgoodpeople]

Let me respond in Coolemee style.

First, I started the thread to get a little input from the board here, specifically King, as the meeting was starting, going on and people I know well as near and dear friends got on planes to attend in short order because they felt that things were being set in motion that would inevitably lead to changes in the numbers of divisions and teams and numbers on the teams. I know King has used this board to crusade for these types of changes, and being the good conservative that I am, I wanted to interact on the issue with the thought "be careful what you ask for, you may get the very change you are convinced is good and it may have effects you did not consider and could potentially lead to a situation that is worse. That is my motive, not some conspiratorial mumbo jumbo.

Second, the people at Varsity are great people, they love cheerleading, they live and die cheerleading and they want the very best for cheerleading from my experience. But they are a company based on profit, and there is a very delicate balance between a companies mission and the need to produce profit. If and when they become dominant in this Industry, from camp, to competitions to uniforms to everything, the one thing that keeps all companies toes to the fire for their mission statement, which I would assume from Varsity would be something along the lines to make the cheerleading the best it can be in every way, could be lost. And it's not committees, rules and meetings ACEDAD, it's competition in the arena of all thing cheerleading. Always promote a healthy market and competition, with the appropriate rules and regs of course, but when asked, always fall of on the side of choice and competition in business.

Now, on my statements concerning the athletes and numbers of divisions, I have talked to people from Varsity, competition companies, gyms (and yes, I use the board to get opinions from parents, coaches, owners) over the last few months about the proposed changes. My opinions are a composite of the interactions, not direct words from anyone. But I know people and their actions pretty well from my profession, and I have a talent in reading both people and tea leaves. All these people want the best for cheerleading, all of them. But, to basically change a system that has worked to this point is risky. And when you see the routines the large squads put on the floor this year, WC, F5, CEA and all the others, you have to understand there is no way a squad of 24 can do the things these teams do. 30-32, maybe, but 24, no way. I don't like it, and it will stifle innovation in all the aspects of cheerleading. I do believe that to be fact. So when these changes are made, and believe me when people of influence that are dedicated to keeping large teams as they are say "I tried, it's over" than I take that as meaning the writing is on the wall in permanent ink. Has the vote been cast, no, but people I know that really think this could be bad for cheerleading are at the point of giving up fighting for the status quo, it very likely has passed.

So, I'm not being critical of anyone or their agenda, King is a good guy, ACEDAD is trying hard to make sure things are done right, McLovin loves cheerleading and tells me the truth. I'm just saying from my reading of the leaves and writing on the wall, what many think is the right thing to do is virtually certain to happen. If it does, let's make it work for everyone, and use it as an opportunity to make this a better sport. There is surely nothing I could do about any of it, I'm just watching things unfold.

 

[Mclovin]

Let me respond in Coolemee style.

First, I started the thread to get a little input from the board here, specifically King, as the meeting was starting, going on and people I know well as near and dear friends got on planes to attend in short order because they felt that things were being set in motion that would inevitably lead to changes in the numbers of divisions and teams and numbers on the teams. I know King has used this board to crusade for these types of changes, and being the good conservative that I am, I wanted to interact on the issue with the thought "be careful what you ask for, you may get the very change you are convinced is good and it may have effects you did not consider and could potentially lead to a situation that is worse. That is my motive, not some conspiratorial mumbo jumbo.

Second, the people at Varsity are great people, they love cheerleading, they live and die cheerleading and they want the very best for cheerleading from my experience. But they are a company based on profit, and there is a very delicate balance between a companies mission and the need to produce profit. If and when they become dominant in this Industry, from camp, to competitions to uniforms to everything, the one thing that keeps all companies toes to the fire for their mission statement, which I would assume from Varsity would be something along the lines to make the cheerleading the best it can be in every way, could be lost. And it's not committees, rules and meetings ACEDAD, it's competition in the arena of all thing cheerleading. Always promote a healthy market and competition, with the appropriate rules and regs of course, but when asked, always fall of on the side of choice and competition in business.

Now, on my statements concerning the athletes and numbers of divisions, I have talked to people from Varsity, competition companies, gyms (and yes, I use the board to get opinions from parents, coaches, owners) over the last few months about the proposed changes. My opinions are a composite of the interactions, not direct words from anyone. But I know people and their actions pretty well from my profession, and I have a talent in reading both people and tea leaves. All these people want the best for cheerleading, all of them. But, to basically change a system that has worked to this point is risky. And when you see the routines the large squads put on the floor this year, WC, F5, CEA and all the others, you have to understand there is no way a squad of 24 can do the things these teams do. 30-32, maybe, but 24, no way. I don't like it, and it will stifle innovation in all the aspects of cheerleading. I do believe that to be fact. So when these changes are made, and believe me when people of influence that are dedicated to keeping large teams as they are say "I tried, it's over" than I take that as meaning the writing is on the wall in permanent ink. Has the vote been cast, no, but people I know that really think this could be bad for cheerleading are at the point of giving up fighting for the status quo, it very likely has passed.

So, I'm not being critical of anyone or their agenda, King is a good guy, ACEDAD is trying hard to make sure things are done right, McLovin loves cheerleading and tells me the truth. I'm just saying from my reading of the leaves and writing on the wall, what many think is the right thing to do is virtually certain to happen. If it does, let's make it work for everyone, and use it as an opportunity to make this a better sport. There is surely nothing I could do about any of it, I'm just watching things unfold.

I am happy to say I understood everything you just posted. And I appreciate your willingness to come down to my level so I could. :)

And I understand exactly what you are saying and I think most of us here on the boards would agree with you that 30-32 would be much better than 24. And I would also agree that it will prevent teams from producing super creative pyramids and such. I am not in favor of 24 across the board at all, but I am even more not in favor of keeping it at 36 because it is causing the large divisions to die. If going with 24 is the ONLY way (which I don't think it is) to keep divisions deep, then I am willing to give it a try. The one thing I do believe about cheer and all the powers that be is that they seem to be willing to change when necessary to keep things productive and yes, profitable. I would disagree that cheer is doing fine as it is. And I believe change is necessary to keep our sport on its toes. Just in the 7 years I have been affiliated with all stars there have been SO many changes for the better. Some I haven't liked, others I have loved. To me, this is just another "change" that needs to happen that we all need to adjust to and give it time to work its magic.

I am still going to hope and pray that the USASF members and committees and boards all lean more towards dropping large teams to 28,30,32 whichever number they feel is best. But in the end, if it ends up 24, I'll gripe and complain, but I'll get over it and I'll still love this sport as much as I always have. But I do believe that if it doesn't work out as well as planned, the powers that be will take a look at it once again and change it again. And they'll keep changing things until they figure out what works best.

And can I just say that it is sooo odd to me that I am on the "progressive" side of this argument because I am the most conservative person I know! lol :)

 

[SharkDad]

allgoodpeople I know you're very smart and knowledgeable in this sport.

I think it's best if we let the process work rather than report to everyone that it's a done deal and to give up hope. There are other ways to help make positive change happen.

 

[ACEDAD]

I'm just saying from my reading of the leaves and writing on the wall, what many think is the right thing to do is virtually certain to happen. If it does, let's make it work for everyone, and use it as an opportunity to make this a better sport. There is surely nothing I could do about any of it, I'm just watching things unfold.

This is completely different from "it passed". If you had stated this in the beginning, I would have had no issue. I'm 100% behind market forces; that's why transparency in the rules and rulemaking process needs continued improvement.

Your original comment was no more than the equivalent of an opinion poll pretending to be the actual results. It's a little early to be printing the "Dewey Wins" papers.

 

[BlueCat]

FYI - there is no way that ANY rule has "passed" for the following season. Even with the connections/positions I have, there is no way to know what will eventually come about. I CAN tell you with absolute certainty that there has been no decision on that, or any other rules matter, for 2011-2012. There are at least 3 completely different groups that have to weigh in on this (or any other rules-related) matter, and the first one of those doesn't even review this until January. Technically, any 1 of those groups could overturn a move to 24. With different individuals sitting on each of those boards, there is simply no way to predict that with anything approaching certainty.

For what it is worth, in this part of the world, there has been little to no discussion about moving everyone to 24. At the SW Regional meeting, moving to 30 vs 36 for large seemed to get general consensus from that crowd, but I don't recall any mention of anything moving to 24. (No official poll or vote was taken, just a gut feeling.) Your "tea leaves" are telling you much different things than mine are.

Again, I have no way to predict the outcome of this. (I can't even predict my own opinion on the matter until I have heard all of the arguments for all sides.)

 

[allgoodpeople]

This is completely different from "it passed". If you had stated this in the beginning, I would have had no issue. I'm 100% behind market forces; that's why transparency in the rules and rulemaking process needs continued improvement.

Your original comment was no more than the equivalent of an opinion poll pretending to be the actual results. It's a little early to be printing the "Dewey Wins" papers.

Well, we are on a message board and in many ways I think you are talking semantics. I will say this, after serving on two boards for a large regional Health Care system called Novant Health in the Carolinas and Virginia, I do have some idea how decisions get introduced and are made. The movers and shakers, usually the CEO from the companies come up with an agenda, and use the working meetings with the various and disparate groups participating on the committees and boards to begin to interact and build consensus. Usually, almost every time, the opinions and decisions proposed and hashed out in working groups and committees move through the system relatively untouched, or modified only to some small degree and are eventually rubber stamped at the official meetings. That said, I have not been involved in USASF or Varsity, but the system you appear to be monitoring feels and smells very similar to the ones I participated in, with different groups and agendas discussing the ideas and opinions and coming to consensus. It is possible this is different, I would be surprised. As noted in some other info here, the pov has been advanced strongly that smaller teams and gyms cannot compete with 36 athletes, and 36 member large all girl and coed teams have been the standard in cheer for years. So, a push from those concerned with competition or fairness can and will change the norm in cheerleading for the future. I have heard from multiple sources, 24 member teams if one division is put into place was the overwhelming consensus from everyone at the meetings. Take it for what it is worth, my opinion from what I'm hearing. I hope they stick with 2 divisions, large and small, and if my input on this board does anything to preserve the large all girl and coed team, I would not only be shocked but elated. Again, and I stick by my opinion, the fact that the divisions and numbers involved will change in the future is a done deal I hear, and the likely outcome is one division of 24 athletes.

 

[allgoodpeople]

FYI - there is no way that ANY rule has "passed" for the following season. Even with the connections/positions I have, there is no way to know what will eventually come about. I CAN tell you with absolute certainty that there has been no decision on that, or any other rules matter, for 2011-2012. There are at least 3 completely different groups that have to weigh in on this (or any other rules-related) matter, and the first one of those doesn't even review this until January. Technically, any 1 of those groups could overturn a move to 24. With different individuals sitting on each of those boards, there is simply no way to predict that with anything approaching certainty.

For what it is worth, in this part of the world, there has been little to no discussion about moving everyone to 24. At the SW Regional meeting, moving to 30 vs 36 for large seemed to get general consensus from that crowd, but I don't recall any mention of anything moving to 24. (No official poll or vote was taken, just a gut feeling.) Your "tea leaves" are telling you much different things than mine are.

Again, I have no way to predict the outcome of this. (I can't even predict my own opinion on the matter until I have heard all of the arguments for all sides.)

Predictions are never done with certainty. Did you attend this past week and weekend?

 

[King]

Predictions are never done with certainty. Did you attend this past week and weekend?

He may not have been. Though I tend to think he is very in the know.

 

[allgoodpeople]

I'm not sure he was. He's not that involved with much of this.

It's not a big deal one way or the other. I guess none of this is with what is going on in the World. However, I have moved to the mode you suggested in the earlier part of the thread before I had ever thought of the possibility. If shedding light on the subject can lead to a better outcome, I'm all for it, and I have no problem with those supporting one division or even 24 athletes per team. Their pov and agenda. But I think it is a exercise in futility to try to change something that appears to have great momentum. And there are multiple reasons that smaller gyms would like this change, not the least of which is keeping highly talented athletes at home and away from regional gyms due to the limited number of slots available for Worlds teams athletes. But, much to your delight I suppose, I have gotten some people from the cheer industry to openly complain about the dialogues here, and even had the owner of a major gym to call and ask me to remove a post, that was in retrospect in a bit of bad taste even though I did not mean it in the way it was taken. I'm open to listening and changing my mind and I hope I'm very wrong. Apparently, as you say in your mast head, a lot of people read. And call me, or pm me, I'm just speaking for me.

 

[King]

At least 50% (probably higher) of the organizations in the industry have at least one representative on here (be it athlete, parent, coach, gym owner, event producer, or the USASF) and about 25% of the industry has an active readership on this board and follow it daily to every other day.

The USASF, Varsity, JamBrands, and CheerSport had no open (or at least perceived open) way of communication to allow the cheer community to get together and and talk shop. There was a hole, and Fierce Board filled it. No matter how silly the name is or what some of the topics on here discuss, the board is getting stronger and more official by the day. The tech industry has seen this happen quite a few times. Perhaps you have heard of the iPhone 4 and the Gizmodo drama? A gadget news blog showed off youtube videos and reports damming the iPhone antenna and how bad it can be. So strong were these reports that Apple invited all these news blogs to a special conference (after banning Gizmodo from any Apple event because of the posting of images of their stolen prototype) to try and squash all the negative press. The internet has given power to these virtual organized communities. So much so they are often viewed as more reliable and truthful places to gather information. I would bet any reader on here is more likely to ask a rules question here 'first' and trust the answer given by the community.

Every person on this board has the ability to use (and abuse) this forum. Everyone DOES read it. If they didn't, it wouldn't have been mentioned at any USASF meeting. And it isn't going away. (even if it did something else would fill in the hole it would leave). So, be careful what you say. It may have more unforeseen consequences.

 

[allgoodpeople]

At least 50% (probably higher) of the organizations in the industry have at least one representative on here (be it athlete, parent, coach, gym owner, event producer, or the USASF) and about 25% of the industry has an active readership on this board and follow it daily to every other day.

The USASF, Varsity, JamBrands, and CheerSport had no open (or at least perceived open) way of communication to allow the cheer community to get together and and talk shop. There was a hole, and Fierce Board filled it. No matter how silly the name is or what some of the topics on here discuss, the board is getting stronger and more official by the day. The tech industry has seen this happen quite a few times. Perhaps you have heard of the iPhone 4 and the Gizmodo drama? A gadget news blog showed off youtube videos and reports damming the iPhone antenna and how bad it can be. So strong were these reports that Apple invited all these news blogs to a special conference (after banning Gizmodo from any Apple event because of the posting of images of their stolen prototype) to try and squash all the negative press. The internet has given power to these virtual organized communities. So much so they are often viewed as more reliable and truthful places to gather information. I would bet any reader on here is more likely to ask a rules question here 'first' and trust the answer given by the community.

Every person on this board has the ability to use (and abuse) this forum. Everyone DOES read it. If they didn't, it wouldn't have been mentioned at any USASF meeting. And it isn't going away. (even if it did something else would fill in the hole it would leave). So, be careful what you say. It may have more unforeseen consequences.

The kids have 4s. That said, I'm sure you're correct. I can read stuff about my business on the Internet, some of it flattering, some not, and some just downright false. You will have to monitor this stuff, and firms have services to monitor it for you. If you look, there are people, owners, officers in cheer companies that have a lot of capital tied up in their companies. I find them to be like me, in that they do not like negative press and opinions at all. They do pretty well I suppose, but there is a lot of sensitivity out there. If you talk to someone, tell them a guy that has put at least 300k into the cheer gyms and competitions along with airlines, food service and hotels over the last 12 years thinks that going to one division with 24 athletes is a mistake. Thanks.

 

[King]

I always wonder, is the non sequitur on purpose?