Changes in the Big D.

[allgoodpeople]

Hmm, so the new proposed rules will have the biggest effect on gyms that have large teams that draw regional athletes from smaller gyms and also use crossovers, that is if I'm reading you correctly. That is a shocker.

 

[King]

Well then the question is if you are not a biggest gym (which is the majority of the market) why should you be against dropping large to 30 (or even to 24).

If I am a small gym owner (125 I think is the number?) why wouldn't I want 30? 24?

If I was a medium Gym owner (125 - 250 ish?) why wouldn't I want 30? 24?

And then it does affect large gyms, how many are there in the US?

What is in it for gyms that are not 'large'?

 

[Mclovin]

You know, sometimes I think people who are so privileged to be a part of something huge and significant need to spend a year in the shoes of those who are not. Just sayin . . . .

 

[allgoodpeople]

You know, sometimes I think people who are so privileged to be a part of something huge and significant need to spend a year in the shoes of those who are not. Just sayin . . . .

CEA was 100 kids when we started and Greensboro and Charlotte cleaned our clocks with regularity. Actually, we started in Clemmons NC in a gym called the Dazzlers (about 60 kids) for 2 years, getting our clock cleaned at every competition. I remember the 1st year in Cheersport in 98, "at a big competition like this, 8th is as good as first with 9 teams in the division". I've been there before McLovin, even with Courtney. That said, it's not the point. It appears the majority of smaller gyms feel that by restricting choices in the larger gyms, you can level the playing field and improve competition and participation, and from what I hear, larger gyms that may surprise you feel the same way. You may be right, but CheerSport is the biggest, most lucrative comptetion in the world with more divisions and more choice of athletes per team, in other words, more choice and less restriction. The market seems to say yes to choice.

 

[allgoodpeople]

Well then the question is if you are not a biggest gym (which is the majority of the market) why should you be against dropping large to 30 (or even to 24).

If I am a small gym owner (125 I think is the number?) why wouldn't I want 30? 24?

If I was a medium Gym owner (125 - 250 ish?) why wouldn't I want 30? 24?

And then it does affect large gyms, how many are there in the US?

What is in it for gyms that are not 'large'?

Good questions, tonight I'll give them some thought.

 

[Deleted member 15]

CEA was 100 kids when we started and Greensboro and Charlotte cleaned our clocks with regularity. Actually, we started in Clemmons NC in a gym called the Dazzlers (about 60 kids) for 2 years, getting our clock cleaned at every competition. I remember the 1st year in Cheersport in 98, "at a big competition like this, 8th is as good as first with 9 teams in the division". I've been there before McLovin, even with Courtney. That said, it's not the point. It appears the majority of smaller gyms feel that by restricting choices in the larger gyms, you can level the playing field and improve competition and participation, and from what I hear, larger gyms that may surprise you feel the same way. You may be right, but CheerSport is the biggest, most lucrative comptetion in the world with more divisions and more choice of athletes per team, in other words, more choice and less restriction. The market seems to say yes to choice.

Cheersport also had the highest average number of teams per division.

 

[King]

Cheersport has been VERY successful. I am not sure the market can (or should) support 15 cheersports. The hierarchy of competitions should look like a pyramid. There should be 4 or 5 big ones at the top, some larger regionals after that, followed by some small locals.

If there are too many choices sometimes people choose not to. Extra utility doesn't always come from too many choices. But having the right choices is more the way to go.

 

[CGAcheer]

Well then the question is if you are not a biggest gym (which is the majority of the market) why should you be against dropping large to 30 (or even to 24).

If I am a small gym owner (125 I think is the number?) why wouldn't I want 30? 24?

If I was a medium Gym owner (125 - 250 ish?) why wouldn't I want 30? 24?

And then it does affect large gyms, how many are there in the US?

What is in it for gyms that are not 'large'?

For us, Last year we would have gone from 3 teams (18,13 and 10) 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.

we are a small gym with 60 kids in our 3rd year and are the first Allstar Gym in our area.

 

[CGAcheer]

24 is too limited. its too big of a number for smaller small gyms to hit and have all the kids be at or near the level.

changing from 36 to 30 will probably encourage more small gyms to jump into the large division

 

[NEliteSteven]

I'm from a small gym, and I think changing large to 30 is much more beneficial for my gym in particular. Everyone at 24 is only going to hurt us. This year we have one senior team with 36 kids. If this passes and we have the same number of kids next year, 4 stunts groups vs 6, is way different than 4 stunt groups vs 5. Let alone the difference in tumbling levels. Ay yi yi.

I'm really tired, so if this makes no sense, I apologize.

 

[SharkDad]

24 is too limited. its too big of a number for smaller small gyms to hit and have all the kids be at or near the level.

changing from 36 to 30 will probably encourage more small gyms to jump into the large division

I think this is the most obvious point to be made

 

[Mom Jeans]

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 our gym, crossovers only pay for their comp fees. We don't set up teams with crossovers in mind, they are added after the teams are set. Pretty much it's to fill in needed gaps. So it wouldn't be a revenue issue. For my gym 24, would mean having to field another team in the same level and splitting them into a Jr team and a Sr. team. That might force us to use more crossovers.

 

[Mclovin]

CEA was 100 kids when we started and Greensboro and Charlotte cleaned our clocks with regularity. Actually, we started in Clemmons NC in a gym called the Dazzlers (about 60 kids) for 2 years, getting our clock cleaned at every competition. I remember the 1st year in Cheersport in 98, "at a big competition like this, 8th is as good as first with 9 teams in the division". I've been there before McLovin, even with Courtney. That said, it's not the point. It appears the majority of smaller gyms feel that by restricting choices in the larger gyms, you can level the playing field and improve competition and participation, and from what I hear, larger gyms that may surprise you feel the same way. You may be right, but CheerSport is the biggest, most lucrative comptetion in the world with more divisions and more choice of athletes per team, in other words, more choice and less restriction. The market seems to say yes to choice.

I realize CEA started small and I admire Courtney's ability to grow into such a huge powerhouse. But put yourself in the position you would have been in in 1998. 60 kids and getting your clocked cleaned regularly. I'm sure it crossed your mind (or would have had it been planted there, lol) that it would be nice if X Y or Z could change to make your gym more competitive with Charlotte and Greensboro. I would imagine that Courtney's answer to that problem was to use crossovers to "appear" to be as large as these other gyms. It worked phenomenally for her. I don't know what NCA's policies were back then, but for gyms wanting to take their whole program to NCA it is impossible to use that strategy now. Cheersport, as I see it, is a "keep everyone happy" kind of competition. Unlimited crossovers, splitting divisions to assure its clientel that they will have a better chance at placing higher than 20th or 30th in a division, etc. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, but its just a much different beast to tackle than NCA which happens to be in my part of the country. Being at a gym that is at the low end of being considered "medium" and keeping with the standard of placing kids on teams by all around ability and not combining skills to max out a team, it is next to impossible to achieve large team status. Heck, we struggle to fill a team to 20 sometimes. Why can't we expect the USASF to listen to our gym's needs, too. We matter just as much as the gyms with hundreds of athletes. I just think you tend to only see what's good for CEA and not what's good for our industry as a whole. Take your gym of 60 athletes from 1998 and put them in 2010. Would you feel any different? Be honest.

 

[allgoodpeople]

I realize CEA started small and I admire Courtney's ability to grow into such a huge powerhouse. But put yourself in the position you would have been in in 1998. 60 kids and getting your clocked cleaned regularly. I'm sure it crossed your mind (or would have had it been planted there, lol) that it would be nice if X Y or Z could change to make your gym more competitive with Charlotte and Greensboro. I would imagine that Courtney's answer to that problem was to use crossovers to "appear" to be as large as these other gyms. It worked phenomenally for her. I don't know what NCA's policies were back then, but for gyms wanting to take their whole program to NCA it is impossible to use that strategy now. Cheersport, as I see it, is a "keep everyone happy" kind of competition. Unlimited crossovers, splitting divisions to assure its clientel that they will have a better chance at placing higher than 20th or 30th in a division, etc. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, but its just a much different beast to tackle than NCA which happens to be in my part of the country. Being at a gym that is at the low end of being considered "medium" and keeping with the standard of placing kids on teams by all around ability and not combining skills to max out a team, it is next to impossible to achieve large team status. Heck, we struggle to fill a team to 20 sometimes. Why can't we expect the USASF to listen to our gym's needs, too. We matter just as much as the gyms with hundreds of athletes. I just think you tend to only see what's good for CEA and not what's good for our industry as a whole. Take your gym of 60 athletes from 1998 and put them in 2010. Would you feel any different? Be honest.

Honestly, I would do what I did and help CEA grow to the point that they could compete with anyone. A lot of us hooked onto Courtney's star and helped her become successful. K-vegas is not historically a hot spot for cheer, she made it that way and not every town in the US is going to be able to attract a talent such as hers. They are few and far between, but CEA would wither and die if she left tomorrow, not the other way around. We happened to find the right coach at the right time. But, at 60 the only way I could field competitive teams in the youth, jr and senior division would be crossovers. That said, I would not expect the sanctioning organization to permanently distort and probably forever change the nature of a division that has given us Panthers, F5, Shooting Stars, SE and now Diamonds, Marlins, Superstars and all the others. They are icons of cheer, and the routines they do are gems that will not be duplicated with much lower numbers of cheerleaders. She chose to use the rules and evolve and grow so she could compete. If I did not have the population base or staff to rise to that level, I would not expect the ones that do to come back to me through the rules, I'd try to win small.

Now, we are talking about one major competition, Worlds, and not NCA in total when I say this. IF, IF the industry would look at them all from the small local and regional competitions to the nationals, super nationals and then Worlds and come up with a comprehensive organization that had consensus from all the various parties involved, and that became one division of all girl in a limited number then I would surely be happier and more comfortable with the process. If Worlds becomes the final event in the national and international quest for one champion, let's do it. But right now this appears to be an attempt to change the most prestigious competition in the World to bring the most successful teams back to those that are trying to get there, and I'm not the one calling for changes in the basic nature of all girl cheer than have existed for a long time and led to the present level of success. All for a ill defined feeling that it will lead to more competition and participation based on unproven assumptions and speculation, when the real world model of CheerSport suggest just the opposite. But ask people much smarter than me, like Brubaker, Webb, Collins and get their input. I don't know much about it in all honesty.

 

[Mclovin]

Back before my day in all stars, I believe there used to be an unlimited amount of kids on teams, and even in the early 2000's I believe they could have like 40ish or something like that. When they changed the max number on teams to 36 did that destroy the "look" or "creativity" a team had? Did it cause those teams with the ability to have 40-50-60 kids on the floor to lose kids to other gyms or have no place for them? I don't personally know but I doubt it. I just don't think limiting the number of kids on a team to 30 is going to destroy our sport. I don't think it's going to substantially change anything. Now 24 is a different story and I think I've already stated I'm against that proposal unless it's the ONLY option we have. But why should our industry cater to F5, Stars, Sr. Elite, Marlins, PSS, etc. just because they are doing fine? What about the 100's of other gyms that aren't? You keep using Cheersport as an example, but even Cheersport splits divisions based on size of teams. Most competitions aren't big enough to do that so what we are proposing is that the max be limited to keep team sizes closer together. Then there's no need to split divisions at any competition.