Changes in the Big D.

[King]

Say yes to this and no to transforming any division until a comprehensive, sensible reform of the competition season is proposed, hashed out and agreed on please. Or, in my Coolemee tone, keep you hands off the large senior division until you get your poop straight about what we are trying to achieve with the competition schedule and Worlds.

I think that is some of the most honest you have been in your intentions. The reason I bring it up is the goal is not to screw anyone or anything up. It is to improve. Not to cost any gym a title or make it so you do not have a square shot at your Worlds title again. But to make sure you are competing against 30 teams instead of 10 at Worlds. And if changes don't happen I think you will see it slip away more. You have had one major player already leave the division, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the minor ones follow. Yes beating WCSS for a 2nd title in a row would be great, but not if there is only 2 teams in the division.

 

[allgoodpeople]

I think that is some of the most honest you have been in your intentions. The reason I bring it up is the goal is not to screw anyone or anything up. It is to improve. Not to cost any gym a title or make it so you do not have a square shot at your Worlds title again. But to make sure you are competing against 30 teams instead of 10 at Worlds. And if changes don't happen I think you will see it slip away more. You have had one major player already leave the division, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the minor ones follow. Yes beating WCSS for a 2nd title in a row would be great, but not if there is only 2 teams in the division.

I've been quite up front about my agenda in this matter. What really is yours? This is not the centerpiece of reform in All Star Cheer. What KB proposes, is in fact. If you have 100 all girl teams and 80 are small and 20 are large, how is that different in reality if there are 75/25 or 85/15? You just don't know, or have any real proof that your assumptions are true. However, if you go to one division of 24, then you have an absolute idea of what the division will look like in Orlando. And you know it will effect the makeup of the varied competitions not under the control of USASF, pushing them to impose similar rules as to not have teams going from 36 at Jamfest to 24 at Worlds. How is changing large to 30 going to effect Jamfest, CheerSport and the make up of your team and mix of athletes during the year? Is this committee going to tell them how they can structure their divisions? You're gonna get what you are looking for, a basic change in the large all girl makeup, it just might not be what you think you are looking for. Or maybe it is?

 

[King]

I would not say you have been quite up front, but it can be gleaned.

My intentions? When I say 30 to large I mean all large divisions in general. I have even stated keeping the Worlds divisions the exact same and change everything 1 - 4. Why? Because as much as we sometimes think the world revolves around Worlds it doesn't. The healthier the industry and having more teams to compete against the healthier cheerleading is and the better in the end it will be for any gym. And maybe extremely healthy divisions plentiful with competitors in 1 - 4 would finally get through to people in the 5's a change needs to be made.

 

[allgoodpeople]

I would not say you have been quite up front, but it can be gleaned.

My intentions? When I say 30 to large I mean all large divisions in general. I have even stated keeping the Worlds divisions the exact same and change everything 1 - 4. Why? Because as much as we sometimes think the world revolves around Worlds it doesn't. The healthier the industry and having more teams to compete against the healthier cheerleading is and the better in the end it will be for any gym. And maybe extremely healthy divisions plentiful with competitors in 1 - 4 would finally get through to people in the 5's a change needs to be made.

Fine, get all the competitions, Jamfest, CheerSport, NCA, all of them at the table and change it. And while you're at it standardize the score sheet and judging. No problems with that at all. If you are going to basically change the nature of large divisions, get a buy in up front, but don't try to ram it through the back door because you are going to end up with one division of 24 due to the mechanics of forcing change from above. Why is that difficult, my point and agenda the whole time? And back to the first post, if you do it the back door method, you will not bring everyone together, you will fracture the sport, and companies will use the disagreements to pursue their own agenda.

 

[King]

I am not sure if you are implying I am for 24 or that I have back door workings to push something through?

The Fierce Board has about as much political power as Fox News.

 

[King]

Either way, I have no intentions of 24, in fact I think you will only find reluctance of acceptance in any post if it is supposed to happen. I am not sure where anyone is hearing 24 (if you took a straw poll on here at least I think you would find most against 24) and the implication of pushing it through is kinda silly. Who? Who is pushing it through? What are they pushing? This needs to be more than just a little list in McCarthy's pocket.

 

[allgoodpeople]

I am not sure if you are implying I am for 24 or that I have back door workings to push something through?

The Fierce Board has about as much political power as Fox News.

I'm saying that the committees that met in Dallas as working groups proposed limiting divisions to one and limiting the number of athletes to 24 so the small gyms could compete with the large gyms amongst other ideas in a big agenda discussion. I have no doubt someone else may have said, 30 and 20, 2 divisions, or any other number of possibilities. I was told at the time, and I have not talked to anyone but here about it since, that the overwhelming consensus in the working groups, when the various people talked was one division. Now, it would make sense to do it that way from a top down method, as if you make the World's teams one division of 24, the other competition would have a lot of pressure to follow suit. If you do 2 divisions, one small and large, the other companies will have a general mish mash of 36, 32, 30, 28, 24, 20, one division only, 2 divisions and the coaches will not know how to do the routines or their personnel. The pressure will be one division, standard number. You may not want it that way, I'm saying, as I have from the beginning, is that is the likely outcome. Why do it this way, using the pressure of the makeup of the Worlds team to force change from above?

 

[King]

If you are asking a systematic question then the reason to do it that way is that it makes the most sense.

As for pushing things through quickly the system is setup now to discourage change, rather than encourage. It would be really hard to slip something through as there are 3 different checkpoints along the way that it has to pass.

If you are referencing the creation of 4.2 as how something can get slipped in (someone correct me if I am wrong) but I get it. That division seemed to come out of nowhere and just existed one day. Though I think of that as the last time there wasn't a democratic process to change or create something.

This change would have such wide reaching changes (unlike 4.2 which just adds a little bit of pork to the system) it would be very hard for people to not voice a very loud opinion.

If you are truly concerned with the idea that the masses (gyms/coaches/parents/athletes) are about to get something shoved down their throat that they don't want then the MOST important thing is get the message about and give people a place to discuss. That IS this board. The board has no agenda. I have (nor will any admin) delete a post because we disagree with it. There has been plenty of controversial things on this board, some I agree with and some I don't, but to ever delete or get rid of that stuff would be defeating what this place is about. So because there is so much freedom and ability to spread the message you need to encourage EVERYONE (not just people at your gym) to get on here. Talk. Discuss. and most importantly inform them.

 

[KB_Legend]

I guess perception is reality, but I have heard from everyone I know that attended the meetings (both Dallas and NCA) the proposal to make one division of 24 was gaining little or no support and it is much more likely that there will be a subtle change to the number of team members allowed ( taking 4-6 off the max of large teams) or there will be no change at all. I find it extremely hard to believe that a change to one division of 24 would pass any time soon because NO ONE who would vote on it (gym owners and competition companies) stands to gain anything financially from it, and although I think many of them would be able to maintain, it's also possible that some would lose money, and that's a pretty tough sell

Also just to clarify, team size (meaning max of 20 on small and 21-36 on large) is something that is regulated by the USASF and all member companies have to follow those guidelines... It's not something that was put in place for worlds and the other companies chose to do the same thing, or am I not understanding this correctly?

 

[allgoodpeople]

I guess perception is reality, but I have heard from everyone I know that attended the meetings (both Dallas and NCA) the proposal to make one division of 24 was gaining little or no support and it is much more likely that there will be a subtle change to the number of team members allowed ( taking 4-6 off the max of large teams) or there will be no change at all. I find it extremely hard to believe that a change to one division of 24 would pass any time soon because NO ONE who would vote on it (gym owners and competition companies) stands to gain anything financially from it, and although I think many of them would be able to maintain, it's also possible that some would lose money, and that's a pretty tough sell

Also just to clarify, team size (meaning max of 20 on small and 21-36 on large) is something that is regulated by the USASF and all member companies have to follow those guidelines... It's not something that was put in place for worlds and the other companies chose to do the same thing, or am I not understanding this correctly?

If the proposal is gaining no support and has no chance of passage, then all is well in Coolemee.

 

[KB_Legend]

That is just what people I am close to "in the know" have told me mixed with my gut feelings... I have been wrong before, although rarely, but I don't feel like I am now

 

[allgoodpeople]

That is just what people I am close to "in the know" have told me mixed with my gut feelings... I have been wrong before, although rarely, but I don't feel like I am now

Good, I hope so. King, I'm not against discussion, opinions, interactions, agendas and agree that is what boards are all about. And I do not speak for anyone but myself, and sometimes I wish I would shut up just and I'm sure I'm not alone in that sentiment, especially at home.

 

[King]

If you did shut up then Kyle and I would have no one to have discussions with.

It would be me making fun of him a lot, and that gets old.

 

[allgoodpeople]

If you did shut up then Kyle and I would have no one to have discussions with.

It would be me making fun of him a lot, and that gets old.

You have the right ideas, I hope they get done the right way.

 

[indiglow]

I would not say you have been quite up front, but it can be gleaned.

My intentions? When I say 30 to large I mean all large divisions in general. I have even stated keeping the Worlds divisions the exact same and change everything 1 - 4. Why? Because as much as we sometimes think the world revolves around Worlds it doesn't. The healthier the industry and having more teams to compete against the healthier cheerleading is and the better in the end it will be for any gym. And maybe extremely healthy divisions plentiful with competitors in 1 - 4 would finally get through to people in the 5's a change needs to be made.

AMEN! It is nice to see that in print on the boards. It seems like lots of times people loose sight of that. We have 9 teams in our gym and NONE are level 5. Another gym in our area has 11 teams and only 1 is a level 5 team (sr open at that). With the other couple of gyms around, there are another 30ish team and only 3 of those are level 5 teams. So in my area 6% of teams are world eligible and it is sometimes frustrating when all anyone ever talks about is how a rule change will effect the worlds teams. Ok soapbox done!