Changes in the Big D.

[allgoodpeople]

I always wonder, is the non sequitur on purpose?

Usually, I just don't want you to think I'm as big of a jerk as it seems on here. You know the deal, kids, heart follows the wallet, passion, friends, all tied to the bit of escapism that cheer provides. Passion without consequences, unless you own a company or gym I suppose.

I don't want to hurt people's feelings.

 

[ACEDAD]

Usually, I just don't want you to think I'm as big of a jerk as it seems on here. You know the deal, kids, heart follows the wallet, passion, friends, all tied to the bit of escapism that cheer provides. Passion without consequences, unless you own a company or gym I suppose.

I don't want to hurt people's feelings.

I don't believe King thinks of you as jerk and I know that I don't. I feel like I'm arguing with someone for absolutely no reason.

Your comments on boards and committees is often the way it works in every industry and may be exactly the same in this instance. It may build momentum and a specific decision may end up being the one voted in.

All I had an issue with was the terminology that "it passed" when there was no vote and even if it was just a show of hands, the actual result made no change.

 

[allgoodpeople]

I don't believe King thinks of you as jerk and I know that I don't. I feel like I'm arguing with someone for absolutely no reason.

Your comments on boards and committees is often the way it works in every industry and may be exactly the same in this instance. It may build momentum and a specific decision may end up being the one voted in.

All I had an issue with was the terminology that "it passed" when there was no vote and even if it was just a show of hands, the actual result made no change.

I'm not arguing with you, I respect both of your opinions. There was an old movie, a counter culture flick in the 60s when I was a kid called "Tribes" (I thought you would like that). The message, we are different and it's OK. I used "it's passed" in an intuitive was as a premonition. Usually, when there is information available I'm right on my intuition. It has helped me a lot at times, but sometimes I'm wrong and I get burned. Fortunately, this time it won't be with a business decision. I did not use the term in the way I should have communicated, and tried to explain in subsequent posts. I see you as someone that likes the process, the nuts and bolts, and is committed to making it both public and accurate. I see that the term the way I used it is very different from how you would state "it's passed". You will probably never get burned your way, but sometimes you may not be ahead of the curve. Unfortunately, I don't think I'm wrong about this because the decision makes sense on so many levels for the smaller gyms and the companies wanting more participation. The gyms that have spent years building high profile large teams to attract the best athletes in the region have the most to lose, and there is not enough of them to effect the outcome.

Next time I see both of you we'll get a diet Coke, or a diet Coke and .............

 

[BlueCat]

Out of curiosity, how many of you think either rule change (36 to 30 or all to 24) would have a dramatic impact on who wins competitions like Worlds?

Related question:

I think that most would agree that, for the most part, there is a small handful of gyms that are at or near the top nearly every season (with a few exceptions.) What do you guys feel is the main reason for this?

 

[CGAcheer]

I'm not arguing with you, I respect both of your opinions. There was an old movie, a counter culture flick in the 60s when I was a kid called "Tribes" (I thought you would like that). The message, we are different and it's OK. I used "it's passed" in an intuitive was as a premonition. Usually, when there is information available I'm right on my intuition. It has helped me a lot at times, but sometimes I'm wrong and I get burned. Fortunately, this time it won't be with a business decision. I did not use the term in the way I should have communicated, and tried to explain in subsequent posts. I see you as someone that likes the process, the nuts and bolts, and is committed to making it both public and accurate. I see that the term the way I used it is very different from how you would state "it's passed". You will probably never get burned your way, but sometimes you may not be ahead of the curve. Unfortunately, I don't think I'm wrong about this because the decision makes sense on so many levels for the smaller gyms and the companies wanting more participation. The gyms that have spent years building high profile large teams to attract the best athletes in the region have the most to lose, and there is not enough of them to effect the outcome.

Next time I see both of you we'll get a diet Coke, or a diet Coke and .............

it will hurt the smaller small gyms (the gyms that put out 2 to 4 teams of 10 to 16 kids each.) They will end up either having to combine teams, despite age and skill differences or compete against teams that will be twice their size.

for that same reason it will also reduce the overall number of teams, not so much in level 4 and 5, but it will in 1-3.

 

[King]

Out of curiosity, how many of you think either rule change (36 to 30 or all to 24) would have a dramatic impact on who wins competitions like Worlds?

Related question:

I think that most would agree that, for the most part, there is a small handful of gyms that are at or near the top nearly every season (with a few exceptions.) What do you guys feel is the main reason for this?

I think it would make little change of who is in contention for Worlds. But like I said a while back, to me this is less a worlds division issue as an issue at all the levels. Make the change to 30 for large for all non worlds divisions first.

For 24 though it would make worlds exetremely deep for contenders.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[allgoodpeople]

I think that most would agree that, for the most part, there is a small handful of gyms that are at or near the top nearly every season (with a few exceptions.) What do you guys feel is the main reason for this?

Geographic location, local economy, local competition all play a role. But the primary reason is the ability to recruit the highest level athletes from the geographic area the gym serves (I assume defined by driving distance) due to the staff, the reputation and history of the gym at the highest level competitions. But you have to have slots to put them into on the correct teams. It is no coincedence the same gyms are there year in and out, but I really have to give the staff the #1 credit.

 

[ACEDAD]

Next time I see both of you we'll get a diet Coke, or a diet Coke and .............

I'm a sucker for implied bourbon!

 

[SharkDad]

I'm a sucker for implied bourbon!

Ahem! excuse me. . . .

 

[Mclovin]

Out of curiosity, how many of you think either rule change (36 to 30 or all to 24) would have a dramatic impact on who wins competitions like Worlds?

Related question:

I think that most would agree that, for the most part, there is a small handful of gyms that are at or near the top nearly every season (with a few exceptions.) What do you guys feel is the main reason for this?

I don't believe changing the number allowed on teams will have a huge impact on the top contenders at major nationals and/or worlds, however, I do believe lowering the number from 36 to 30 would INCREASE the number of teams that enter large divisions. As far as 24, I just don't see a positive from this solution at all other than deeper divisions.

I believe the reason the same teams are at or near the top every year is because their owners/staff have learned how to read a scoresheet and use it to their benefit. They have learned how to choreograph a routine to max out in every category.

 

[King]

Do we think the number of participants would go down or up if large went to 30? I keep thinking about at a gym level, but looking at a competition as a whole, if 5,000 came to Competition A last year, and this year the cap limit is at 30 on large, would the same, more, or less come to that competition again?

If it was the exact same number of participants did those kids shift down in teams at the same gym or did they go to another gym?

If it increased then did it increase because the lowering of the limit allowed more gyms to search out and create athletes? Because those 6 athletes had to leave Gym A, went to Gym B and made that small team large, and then Gym B found 2 or 3 more athletes?

Or did the overall participants decrease because there were less spots to hold people?

And did competition among divisions go up? If it stayed the same OR went down then its arguable the idea was a flawed one.

But I don't think staying the course will work. The resolution with the least amount of change for gyms but most likely fixes all the complaints is large to 30 (instead of 24).

 

[allgoodpeople]

You know King, the arguably largest and best competition in the World, CheerSport, has become so successful by making the choices of divisions, etc, greater, not limiting them. There may be a lesson in there somewhere.

Again, take it for what it is worth, but the consensus of the people in the working committees was one division of limited number. IF you can get them to go large and small in the future I would be ecstatic. The one division people have laid out a pretty strong bargaining position from what I have heard.

 

[CGAcheer]

King, how would either change effect you guys? if it were to have been applied to this seasons tryouts, would you have more teams, more large teams, turned kids away, potential level 5 kids leaving because there is no room on the team, possibly having multiple teams in the same division. Do you have the staff and gym capacity to handle adding extra teams?

For us, Last year we would have gone from 3 teams to 2 teams if it would have been changed to 24, large at 30 wouldn't have affected us. This year, neither would have majorly affected us as we are at 20, 24 and 16 with clear skill differences between the 3 teams. but I would prefer my team of 24 competing against 30 instead of 36.

 

[King]

King, how would either change effect you guys? if it were to have been applied to this seasons tryouts, would you have more teams, more large teams, turned kids away, potential level 5 kids leaving because there is no room on the team, possibly having multiple teams in the same division. Do you have the staff and gym capacity to handle adding extra teams?

For us, Last year we would have gone from 3 teams to 2 teams if it would have been changed to 24, large at 30 wouldn't have affected us. This year, neither would have majorly affected us as we are at 20, 24 and 16 with clear skill differences between the 3 teams. but I would prefer my team of 24 competing against 30 instead of 36.

I can't answer this 'for' Stingarys, but I can answer my best guess as to what we would do and why we would like it (so I am not speaking on behalf of Rays, but as a coach and to what I see).

The change from large to 30 would have some trickle down, but in the end I do not think we would lose that many athletes from our gym. We rarely if ever use crossovers ( I think there are 2 in the gym right now for all our teams). Smoke was overloaded with alternates because we had too many level 5 athletes for just Smoke and Orange. We also had a lot of level 5 ish athletes. Ones that might have a skill or two that are level 5, but not overall solid level 5 as they are still developing. We created Spice out of those athletes and made a Senior Open 5. It is not a full team and the numbers have waxed and waned a little bit over the summer. Those extra 6 athletes would have probably been placed on Spice or gone down to our 4 (which I believe is not full at the moment). So on the Sr. 4's and 5's not much would have changed ATM. We do have quite a few athletes that come in during the year and fill up teams, but we take them as a need basis or if we are looking for some (we might go out and 'farm' from all the high schools we coach and help with).

Sr. 3 is full and 6 athletes would have to move down. Our Sr. 3 is always full. Sr. 2 is not full and would take and become stronger with those lower end Sr. 3 kids (if they stayed).

Green is small and stays same. I think Jr. 4 is close to full so a few would drop down to Jr. 3 which is close to full which would drop down to Jr. 2which is not full.

I believe the same goes for Youth and Mini.

From tryouts to actual start of the season you might see a strong dip (kids/parents who come into our program not realizing the expectations put on them even if it they are a mini or level 1 athlete OR they are not happy about their placement) or strong rise (kids not happy with how things are going at their current program who visit us to check us out). There could be a large swing either way.

If we are lacking in numbers (usually 1 - 3) that is when you turn to class kids and try to encourage them to do allstars. 4's and 5's its not quite as simple, and might be a high school kid or you might compete under the max.

So long story short, if large were 30 I think our gym would have had a possible 10 kid swing.

The benefits I think is because we have so many large teams and compete in large divisions we would have more competition. More often than not teams will go small or add 1 boy to avoid us because they feel they would only have a modicum amount of kids that make them large and they could not compete against us when our numbers are greater.

24 would be a completely different story. Shifting 12 kids for each divisions and getting rid of a division (small) I think would be a much harsher change. Though I would agree it would provide tons of competition. I think the possibility of 24, if it is really the best answer, would need a stair step to get there. If you make large 30, keep small, you can see how much your numbers change. If all signs point to 24 being the smarter solution, then 3 years from now I think it could be put forth and voted and people would have a better understanding of how to get to 24.

The reason 30 makes the most sense for large is it is psychologically the next step from 20 that allows for growth BUT doesnt make 21 athletes seem like they cant compete. You can have at most 8 group stunts (excluding 2 mans obviously) in the air. You can have at most 5 group stunts in the air with small. 6 stunts currently on large does not seem competitive, BUT would feel competitive against a max of 8 stunts.

Also you would have 2 extra spots for that great tumbler but weak stunter. 30 kids means there is more chances someone will get hurt or quit. Now you have a bit of backup.

Is that a good answer?

 

[King]

Now, for the crossover part, how much do gyms normally charge crossovers tuition wise to be on another team? Do they usually pay that all year long or just during certain months?

Because mathematically I could see the decreased revenue chances being a reason people wouldn't like going from 36 to 30.

At Rays if all the large teams were filled up by the final 6 spots being crossovers (so if we went to 30 we would just cut out crossovers) and we have 13 teams off the top of my head that are definitely large (those little one teams the just gain all lose so I am not sure) that is 78 paying crossover customers per month. If they paid an extra $50 bucks a month to be a crossover (and that was it) and fill up the teams that is an extra $3900 a month for an extra $46,800 a year for kids already in your gym taking tumbling helping out to fill other teams.

We cannot do it because we take all our teams everywhere and NCA does not allow crossovers. But if you avoided taking most of your program to NCA ( I believe the only one that is a stickler for this, right?) and filling in those spots with extra gym kids then I could see why dropping 36 to 30 is not attractive.