All-Star Crossovers And Sandbagging

[GreenStormLucy]

We have 5 cheer teams and one dance team and i only let athletes cross over if a need a fill-in because of injurie or someone missing a comp. Rarely crossing down from 5 to 4 because of age (most of L5 can't compete on youth or junior level), it's more the lower level athletes that fill in and get more experience that will help them at tryouts. But we are a german gym, that another story than competing in the US on a high level.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

 

[CheerBank]

That....is really weird. I know this is totally within the realm of crazy spit that can happen...but it's the opening, like they weren't even caught up in the frenzy of the routine. So did they just not drill it enough? The muscle memory and effort it takes to do a standing tuck is so completely different than it is for a standing bhs to tuck. Like....what happened there? Maybe I could see one athlete doing this. But 4? This makes me think they just didn't spend enough time drilling that opening because they had to spend too much time changing other, bigger things.

So to me that would point to a lack of training/drilling rather than just a straight up, caught in the moment mistake. I'm sure it was probably drilled after that!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not sure - we were new to all-star cheer and I barely knew what was allowed at each level. I am sure you were right about not working on that opening change enough! All I remember is a huge hush coming over the parents when they realized how many points had just been lost within the first 5 seconds.

 

[CheerBank]

Valid questions! But to me it's not really about protecting the kids. Maybe it's just protecting their strategy. Or just not caring to answer to anyone other than their customers and the authority figures of the sport. It's a personal decision what information and tactics a gym chooses to divulge.

ETA: just because they were asked (no matter how nicely) doesn't mean they're required to answer. Not answering is also an answer.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed, and they would have been better off not responding at all rather than in that way. In my humble opinion.
I have such a great like and respect for @NJ Coach solely from her responses on this board over the years that I am willing to consider your interpretation of the owner and her mom's responses as a "mama bear" knee-jerk responses to protect their cubs, however, the owner's self-professed close friendship with the owner of Pro (who has also been the subject of similar discussions regarding sandbagging on his youth 2 team from their junior and R5 teams) was much more of an eyebrow raiser than the owner not answering the question of how many crossovers.

 

[Cheer Dad]

Valid questions! But to me it's not really about protecting the kids. Maybe it's just protecting their strategy. Or just not caring to answer to anyone other than their customers and the authority figures of the sport. It's a personal decision what information and tactics a gym chooses to divulge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That makes sense. Might have a follow up.


**Don't be silly, it's only sandbagging when OTHER teams do it.**

 

[quitthedrama]

Valid questions! But to me it's not really about protecting the kids. Maybe it's just protecting their strategy. Or just not caring to answer to anyone other than their customers and the authority figures of the sport. It's a personal decision what information and tactics a gym chooses to divulge.

ETA: just because they were asked (no matter how nicely) doesn't mean they're required to answer. Not answering is also an answer.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the issue was the owner put out there that they had 1 crossover. It is clearly evident there are more than that. I agree they had no obligation to answer, but they chose to answer and did so in a defensive and possibly untruthful way.

"You are only responsible for being honest, not for someone else's reaction to your honesty."

 

[cupieqt]

I think the issue was the owner put out there that they had 1 crossover. It is clearly evident there are more than that. I agree they had no obligation to answer, but they chose to answer and did so in a defensive and possibly untruthful way.

"You are only responsible for being honest, not for someone else's reaction to your honesty."

I think it is mostly coming back to how she reacted. It wasn't good. I prefer @NJ Coach 's reaction myself. So now people are side eyeing the owner about what may be a non-issue. "Possibly untruthful" isn't enough for a conviction. I think the only thing we can find them guilty of is being an obnoxious Jersey girl with one agenda (defending her gym).

And my stereotypical image of a Jersey girls fightin' words are a bit worse than what she said. I think I was looking at it less like a full on table flipping hissy fit and more of a finger wagging, head swiveling "mind Ya business" kind of reply.

So all eyes are on them now. But it's really easy to get Jersey moms riled up. And it's also easy to side eye the people we don't know and take umbrage with how non-veteran posters talk to us. None of us take kindly to one our fellow fiercers being condescended to (unless we are doing it to each other haha). We are just as guilty of defending each other without question even if we didn't realize we were just sucked into drama that didn't involve us (present company included).

I just can't side eye NJ about this. I would need a lot more damming evidence to make me question the ethics at their gym. But I also have a very clear understanding of what it's like on their side of the fence. When people start pointing fingers it's hard not to want to hold up a mirror.

And I have to say, when the mud starts flying I always have to look around and see who's hands got dirty. Trying to understand perspectives and motivation from all sides is helpful for me when I'm forming my opinions and replies on topics that are so emotionally charged.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[quitthedrama]

I agree with this completely. I like the program. I do think they use crossovers when they don't have to and cross several levels, but I think many other gyms do the same thing. However, sandbagging has always been a hot subject on this board and if you are going to have noticeable crosses from level 5 then it is going to get talked about.

"You are only responsible for being honest, not for someone else's reaction to your honesty."

 

[cupieqt]

I agree with this completely. I like the program. I do think they use crossovers when they don't have to and cross several levels, but I think many other gyms do the same thing. However, sandbagging has always been a hot subject on this board and if you are going to have noticeable crosses from level 5 then it is going to get talked about.

"You are only responsible for being honest, not for someone else's reaction to your honesty."

Boom. There ya go speakin all that truth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[seein_starz]

For a couple of years my state had a huge problem of teams dropping levels just to win. I remember specifically this one team (I will not say what gym or team) but they were originally a level 5 but didn't have enough fulls so they dropped to level 4 and kept losing and dropped again to level 3. This is sandbagging in my opinion

 

[MissCongeniality]

For a couple of years my state had a huge problem of teams dropping levels just to win. I remember specifically this one team (I will not say what gym or team) but they were originally a level 5 but didn't have enough fulls so they dropped to level 4 and kept losing and dropped again to level 3. This is sandbagging in my opinion

I disagree unless they were only dropping levels for certain big comps. If they were dropping levels across all comps because that is where their skills put them competitively, then I feel that is realistic coaching. I think, too often, gyms try to push to higher levels than they're ready for because "Suzie and Sally have their full and will leave if they're not on a level 5". Never mind that the other 18 are just landing a tuck.

 

[ScorpioGals80]

i think crossing over 1 level is ok. crossing from a 5 to a 2 or 3 is not ok. i think injuries should be an exception. It's not fair to the kids that work just as hard on their level 3 team to compete against another level 3 team that half of the kids are really a level 5. they never have a chance of winning in that case. i like the idea of being able to cross from a 1 to 2 or 2 to 3 and so on (just one level) so that you can work on different skills. say you have level 4 tumbling but only level 3 flying. one team to tumble and one team to fly. or if a base is needed on a higher team but can't do the tumbling. there are tons of things to put into consideration but something has to be done. these kids work too hard.

 

[cupieqt]

A strong level 3 team can beat a team of L5 athletes also doing a L3 routine. With the right coaching and good choreo this isn't out of the realm of possibilities.

That's the old argument of well they're all only able to do the same level skills. But people would be like well that L5 athletes bhs tucks are going to be way better than that L3 athletes. Why? Two well trained athletes doing tucks should do perfect technique in their tucks. If they're throwing janky tucks then that is not a L3 athlete.

If they can't hit the skill in a full out routine then they're not at that level yet. Being able to hit in a full out is the litmus test of level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mamabear]

I definitely understand the need for crossovers in some cases. Cp is at a small- medium sized gym and I have seen the gym try to place athletes on only one team with no crossovers. I watched them try to fill the spots during summer, by having kids try new positions etc. Sometimes it doesn't work out. Sometimes athletes get hurt or quit. The concept of only pulling athletes who compete at the same level does not work for us either since we only have one level that has two different aged teams. All of the others, are only available to one age group. So how are we supposed to fill out the teams?

For example, what happens when an athlete gets hurt? In some cases, the only option in our case due to age levels is that L4 crosses to a 2.

Solutions to the rules could get complicated, but I wonder if it could somehow distinguish that X amount of crossovers from other levels are allowed only if you don't have another team of that level competing at the gym, which you could pull athletes from?

I know that I spoke up in the video page, but I was never upset about crossovers themselves.

 

[Cheermom1969]

I'm speaking solely as a parent and not from the perspective of a coach or gym owner... my daughter's team is a small junior 2. I asked her today and there is only one girl who crosses and it's to our j1 team because of an injury. We are a true level 2 junior team. Have some girls gotten their tuck since the season started? Probably. I honestly have no idea. But I know they didn't have it at the beginning.

Saying all that, if we competed against another small junior 2 team that has more than two or three girls from a level 4 and/or 5 team, I would be really mad. I don't care what's legal and what's not, if a gym has to put a bunch of level 3, 4 and 5 girls on a level 2 team just to make up the team, then maybe the team shouldn't be formed to begin with.
I am NOT directing this at JAS. I am directing it at any gym anywhere.

Again, this is my parent perspective and my .02.

 

[rosebud]

I just heard a team in our area is creating a Sr 2 team with athletes that are all level 4 athletes just so they can win. That bothers me, doing anything just to win.