All-Star Crossovers And Sandbagging

[FlexyTumblerMom]

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.

That's actually a bit dishonest if you think about it - so you call a team level 5 at tryouts and for the first few months of the season so that all the Suzies, Suzie wannabees, and flat out talented kids who could pretty much go anywhere and make at least a R5 stick around and commit, and then sometime in December/January you drop them down to level 4 or 3? I understand wanting to win, but you got to realize some kids and parents (particularly those who actually have the higher level skills) are going to feel pretty unenthusiastic about the rest of the season. I know I personally would feel like I was a victim of a bait and switch.

 

[Dixie]

Happily oblivious if this is happening currently and that's why it's being discussed. Are yall talking full season crossovers? Or kids crossing over just to get bids as it narrows down?

 

[Cheer Dad]

Happily oblivious if this is happening currently and that's why it's being discussed. Are yall talking full season crossovers? Or kids crossing over just to get bids as it narrows down?

Either I guess


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

 

[MissCongeniality]

That's actually a bit dishonest if you think about it - so you call a team level 5 at tryouts and for the first few months of the season so that all the Suzies, Suzie wannabees, and flat out talented kids who could pretty much go anywhere and make at least a R5 stick around and commit, and then sometime in December/January you drop them down to level 4 or 3? I understand wanting to win, but you got to realize some kids and parents (particularly those who actually have the higher level skills) are going to feel pretty unenthusiastic about the rest of the season. I know I personally would feel like I was a victim of a bait and switch.

I would too. But it happens. And there are valid reasons for it. We parents need to just keep our Kool Aid IV flowing

 

[Helen uk uni cheer]

I am currently at a really small gym with 30 ish athletes on 2 teams only 3-4 cross over and it works as it gives the athletes who are new to the sport more confidence when they are grouped with more experienced ahtletes

 

[cupieqt]

That's actually a bit dishonest if you think about it - so you call a team level 5 at tryouts and for the first few months of the season so that all the Suzies, Suzie wannabees, and flat out talented kids who could pretty much go anywhere and make at least a R5 stick around and commit, and then sometime in December/January you drop them down to level 4 or 3? I understand wanting to win, but you got to realize some kids and parents (particularly those who actually have the higher level skills) are going to feel pretty unenthusiastic about the rest of the season. I know I personally would feel like I was a victim of a bait and switch.

It would be dishonest if it was never their intention to compete at L5. But if they really went for it and practiced all summer and got a routine together and could hit elements during warm up but come December or January still couldn't hit a full out, then I think dropping to L3 or 4 would be more about safety and being able to hit confidently. The kids need to feel safe and be confident and they can't be either if they aren't hitting.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MissCongeniality]

It would be dishonest if it was never their intention to compete at L5. But if they really went for it and practiced all summer and got a routine together and could hit elements during warm up but come December or January still couldn't hit a full out, then I think dropping to L3 or 4 would be more about safety and being able to hit confidently. The kids need to feel safe and be confident and they can't be either if they aren't hitting.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This! Exactly.

 

[FlexyTumblerMom]

It would be dishonest if it was never their intention to compete at L5. But if they really went for it and practiced all summer and got a routine together and could hit elements during warm up but come December or January still couldn't hit a full out, then I think dropping to L3 or 4 would be more about safety and being able to hit confidently. The kids need to feel safe and be confident and they can't be either if they aren't hitting.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's true. However, even if they weren't being dishonest about it, I still think it's not a good sign that the program couldn't accurately judge at tryouts the true ability and potential of the athletes - were talking 6 months out, not 2 years. You don't just take a bunch of kids w/ layouts and tucks and say "heck, let's go for level 5" and hope it all comes together in 3-4 months - kids start to get dreams of worlds, they tell their friends they are on a level 5 team, etc. - they are going to feel let down and possibly ashamed if they are demoted. And yes thats true about safety, and you never want to put a kids' pride ahead of their safety, but safe/non-safe should be clear at tryouts too IMO.

I guess if a parent is cheer savvy and pays attention well enough before tryouts they should know the true abilities at their CP's gym and not be suprised if something like this happens, however, that shouldn't be necessary - it's almost like requiring everyone to be a SM.

 

[retiredl5cheer]

That's true. However, even if they weren't being dishonest about it, I still think it's not a good sign that the program couldn't accurately judge at tryouts the true ability and potential of the athletes - were talking 6 months out, not 2 years. You don't just take a bunch of kids w/ layouts and tucks and say "heck, let's go for level 5" and hope it all comes together in 3-4 months - kids start to get dreams of worlds, they tell their friends they are on a level 5 team, etc. - they are going to feel let down and possibly ashamed if they are demoted. And yes thats true about safety, and you never want to put a kids' pride ahead of their safety, but safe/non-safe should be clear at tryouts too IMO.

I guess if a parent is cheer savvy and pays attention well enough before tryouts they should know the true abilities at their CP's gym and not be suprised if something like this happens, however, that shouldn't be necessary - it's almost like requiring everyone to be a SM.

You'd be surprised at how often this happens. The push for L5 is real and scary. Many teams never drop levels though, and just keep competing at a level that is way too advanced for them.

 

[tumbleyoda]

I've been thinking about this in terms of cheer as well as other sports. I remember a time when you had to be an "amateur" athlete to be in the Olympics. Now look at the US basketball team (unh hung...yeah...definition interpretation has changed/athlete funding bla bla bla!). The reality...Our society has become all about the win. If XYZ is doing it ...we have to too. "Kids want to win" "Families will leave" again....bla bla bla.
There is a time and place for crossovers. There is no time nor place for sandbagging. But the win at all costs mentality has obscured the lines. Unless the powers that be can make a rule about it (and face it...unless it somehow benefits them financially, I doubt they will) just take a deep breath and deal with it because it's only going to get worse!

With the Olympic model you suggested, we do have to remember that we were (at that time) as amateurs (and I use that term loosely when you consider the state of college athletics, especially in your marquee sports) we were playing and losing to professionals that were subsidized by their governments. The push was made to make our team look like their team. And domination again took place for some years. This also happened in the Olympics with many other sports other than Basketball. So yes it was a push to win, but more so to level the playing field so that we competing "like" teams against one another.

The whole crossover debate is a case study in ethics vs the law. I am in favor of crossovers in case of emergency, injury, sickness, absence. Because it helps the owner maintain team readiness and allows the athletes to compete. Doing just to stack teams, win in an easier division, sandbag, etc I am against. My stand is ethical and personal. The law allows it with certain limitations. But IMO the industry as a whole will never do away with crossovers because it makes too much money off of them. No EP wants to hear you are pulling out of an event because of injury, etc. By allowing you to crossover, they still make their money. By limiting crossovers they intentionally hurt their pocketbook. So they would prefer gyms to make their own ethical stands and debate the right or wrong of it forever, rather than change the law.

Many years ago I was a part of a program that didn't crossover much. But they got tired of losing to another well known gym (now closed) and having the kids/parents say how bad we sucked. Our thought was at the time we were doing it the right way. The other gym wasn't cheating (according to the law) but were definitely stacking the deck against our gym. This then became a marketing bonanza for the other gym to say how much better they were than our gym. So now we were losing kids behind it. They were seen as the better stronger gym. So it was then my old gym intentionally chose to become crossover heavy. It became a battle of whose crossovers were better. And when they did that, it leveled that playing field. They stopped losing to the other gym. And the marketing campaigns stopped.

The gym I am in now only uses them sparingly, mostly in emergency situations. This year there is one intentional crossover in the entire program. But due to injuries, sickness, violations of attendance policies, etc. we have had to do what we could, rather than pull teams from competitions. All of the directors are committed to this model as our ethical stand, full well knowing that if we cast those away, we could stack teams like crazy, enter new divisions and be seen as the biggest gym in the area. But that would dilute our product and put our athletes at way greater risk of injury/burnout so we refuse to.

I believe in competition. I love to win. Yet there can only be one winner. How I handle not winning says more about me than winning ever will. The lessons I teach everyday in the gym are infinitely more important than the result of a 2:30 performance.

 

[123jump4!]

With the Olympic model you suggested, we do have to remember that we were (at that time) as amateurs (and I use that term loosely when you consider the state of college athletics, especially in your marquee sports) we were playing and losing to professionals that were subsidized by their governments. The push was made to make our team look like their team. And domination again took place for some years. This also happened in the Olympics with many other sports other than Basketball. So yes it was a push to win, but more so to level the playing field so that we competing "like" teams against one another.

The whole crossover debate is a case study in ethics vs the law. I am in favor of crossovers in case of emergency, injury, sickness, absence. Because it helps the owner maintain team readiness and allows the athletes to compete. Doing just to stack teams, win in an easier division, sandbag, etc I am against. My stand is ethical and personal. The law allows it with certain limitations. But IMO the industry as a whole will never do away with crossovers because it makes too much money off of them. No EP wants to hear you are pulling out of an event because of injury, etc. By allowing you to crossover, they still make their money. By limiting crossovers they intentionally hurt their pocketbook. So they would prefer gyms to make their own ethical stands and debate the right or wrong of it forever, rather than change the law.

Many years ago I was a part of a program that didn't crossover much. But they got tired of losing to another well known gym (now closed) and having the kids/parents say how bad we sucked. Our thought was at the time we were doing it the right way. The other gym wasn't cheating (according to the law) but were definitely stacking the deck against our gym. This then became a marketing bonanza for the other gym to say how much better they were than our gym. So now we were losing kids behind it. They were seen as the better stronger gym. So it was then my old gym intentionally chose to become crossover heavy. It became a battle of whose crossovers were better. And when they did that, it leveled that playing field. They stopped losing to the other gym. And the marketing campaigns stopped.

The gym I am in now only uses them sparingly, mostly in emergency situations. This year there is one intentional crossover in the entire program. But due to injuries, sickness, violations of attendance policies, etc. we have had to do what we could, rather than pull teams from competitions. All of the directors are committed to this model as our ethical stand, full well knowing that if we cast those away, we could stack teams like crazy, enter new divisions and be seen as the biggest gym in the area. But that would dilute our product and put our athletes at way greater risk of injury/burnout so we refuse to.

I believe in competition. I love to win. Yet there can only be one winner. How I handle not winning says more about me than winning ever will. The lessons I teach everyday in the gym are infinitely more important than the result of a 2:30 performance.

No experience of this and I don't think our gym does many crossovers. But I'm intrigued by the debate.

Question: If kids are crossed down level(s) just to win, how do they and their parents feel about it? More money, more practices, longer time at comps... to compete skills that are below your level. I don't think I would like it much as a parent?

 

[tumbleyoda]

No experience of this and I don't think our gym does many crossovers. But I'm intrigued by the debate.

Question: If kids are crossed down level(s) just to win, how do they and their parents feel about it? More money, more practices, longer time at comps... to compete skills that are below your level. I don't think I would like it much as a parent?

Honestly it all depends on how it is packaged and sold by the gym owners and coaches. At the end of the day, they are the ones that deal 100 percent with the decision and any fallout, no matter what they choose to do.

Perception is often greater than the reality. One person's crossing up, is another person's crossing down. As it has been said in this thread that you can justify any use of crossovers that you want, but it usually only called sandbagging when someone else does it.

 

[driverto6]

No experience of this and I don't think our gym does many crossovers. But I'm intrigued by the debate.

Question: If kids are crossed down level(s) just to win, how do they and their parents feel about it? More money, more practices, longer time at comps... to compete skills that are below your level. I don't think I would like it much as a parent?

My child has crossed over (down 1 level) a couple of seasons, but only to help out in an injury situation. That is the way our gym has typically handled it. This year, due to the no crossover levels rule at NCA, the gym has worked very hard to have none at all. We have one girl who crosses over on two different teams (both same level, but different age divisions)...other than that, no crossovers. It's been a tougher year than usual, because as always we have had kids quit and some with season ending injuries. The Coaches/Owners have had to be very creative in finding fill-ins from various school teams in the community.

It's hard, but it certainly can be done and you can still have a competitive program with no one at all crossing over!

 

[123jump4!]

Honestly it all depends on how it is packaged and sold by the gym owners and coaches. At the end of the day, they are the ones that deal 100 percent with the decision and any fallout, no matter what they choose to do.

Perception is often greater than the reality. One person's crossing up, is another person's crossing down. As it has been said in this thread that you can justify any use of crossovers that you want, but it usually only called sandbagging when someone else does it.

Interesting... I think I can understand crossing down to be with your own age group but then it would be from example Y5 to M2 (if the kid is still mini aged). Or J4 to Y3 (youth aged) or whatever.

But to cross down within the same age group doesn't really make much sense. Exception would maybe be J5 to J3/J4 and Y5 to Y3, the reason might be to go to local comps and actually have some competition? (because there are not that many Y5&J5)

I think crossovers are ok for injury etc but then it should only be a few, not half a team obviously.

 

[tumbleyoda]

Interesting... I think I can understand crossing down to be with your own age group but then it would be from example Y5 to M2 (if the kid is still mini aged). Or J4 to Y3 (youth aged) or whatever.

But to cross down within the same age group doesn't really make much sense. Exception would maybe be J5 to J3/J4 and Y5 to Y3, the reason might be to go to local comps and actually have some competition? (because there are not that many Y5&J5)

I think crossovers are ok for injury etc but then it should only be a few, not half a team obviously.

In this desire to win or be seen as the best, many gyms and parents are forgetting the need to be with athletes in your own peer group. Being that young kid that is good enough that is pushed to be on the Senior most advanced team that a gym has leads to more mental blocks and performance anxiety moments than we think. Not every young athlete can handle that. No matter how cute or cheerlebrity like that it is.