Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It does, and the thing is your way of increasing deductions if you have less people completely negates the lower to 30. If I have a small team and I can take 2 girls and go large, but I drop one stunt and it kills my score why don't I just stay small where I have a numerical advantage to try harder stuff?
The carrot for people to have large teams is they make the gym more money. Yes it is more risk, but your gym is more profitable.
Jumps and baskets are completely seperate skillsets from stunts and tumbling. I don't think any skill in cheerleading is worth more than another. My only thing is standing and running are different versions of the same skillset. Maybe have two types of stunts. Elites and team stunts.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
My overall point is that if you want it to be "fair" on one side of the equation (score going up), it isn't unreasonable for people to want it to be "fair" on the other side as well. (score going down) The exact same logic and arguments apply to both.
I would think that Pyramids and stunts are different versions of the same skill set as well
The issue is that there is no equitable way to compare two separate sized groups of people. You said there is an advantage in a smaller group because they get more points per group, but small and large groups are capped at the same amount. So no matter what, 3 groups or 9, if the ratios are correct then in no way can either group outscore the other. Your argument is that because you are putting up 9 you increase the chance of risk of falling, so reduce the of the fall because you took on that risk. This is no counterpoint for going with less people in your scenario. The smaller group cannot score the points faster or more. The thing is either way one group is going to be hurt. Either small gets hurt with a single fall is worth a ton, or the larger group is hurt with the higher risk. And both scenarios have rewards. I prefer the current one because overall the subjective part of a scoresheet does get a boost from a larger team. A larger team brings in more money for a gym. Larger teams tend to make a gym look stronger, and henceforth attract other kids to larger teams.
Is it a perfect solution? No. but your argument of weighted deductions isnt any more balanced. There just hasnt been a perfect way to compete different sizes of teams yet, and no one has come up with a better solution.
Well, I wasn't talking about making a small group get 20 times as much penalty. I was talking maybe a 50% increase. This balances out in the long run. If each team has stunts that individually hit 95% of the time, under a weighted system both teams, over time, would eventually end up with about the same total deductions. Under the proposed system, the large team would get half again as many points taken away from them despite the fact that their individual athletes and stunts groups are just as strong as the small team.
I do know that conventional wisdom has large teams getting a magic boost on the scoresheet because they "look better" on the floor. I personally do not believe this to be true. Neither of us really have any way to prove that, as we do not have access to enough information to be able to determine that. (refer to my many posts about judging transparency) I think that people have always just assumed that since they personally like the look of bigger teams more that the judges must be giving them extra points.
I do know that it is easier to find 20 girls that can do 5 stunts and 20 triple toe backs than it is to find 36 girls that can do 36 triple toe backs and 9 stunts. That is the massive advantage already built into the system for the small teams. I think that is more than enough to counter-balance any perceived "big team look" bonus. If you also build in that the smaller teams' athletes and stunt groups don't have to be as consistent to expect the same score, then that is taking it too far, IMO.
I am all for providing ways for gyms of all sizes to increase their business. We do need for all gyms to have a great chance of success in order for our industry to thrive. I do NOT feel that economics should play a part in determining the winner once teams are on the mat. The teams with the strongest, most consistent athletes (and best routine, etc.) should win because of their abilities - not because of which team "needs" it the most financially.
(This is sounding increasingly libertarian vs. Democrat.)
With the maximum execution score being only 1 point higher, you are weighting difficulty much more than execution rather than the FIG code of points which weights both equally.
Also, certain skills need to be compulsory for each level. Let us take stunts:
You must do a double down from an extended one leg extended body position. That is worth .1 on your difficulty score. Those exist in all skill set categories.