All-Star Division I And Division Ii At Worlds - Big Gym Separation

[JulieP]

I'm pretty sure every participant brings in the same "registration" costs. Teams with some form of paid bid just get part of their bill footed by an EP.


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

Good point. I wasn't really thinking about the paid bids as much as the at larges. My point was more that without the at large teams, there is a much smaller pool of teams to cover what it costs to run the event. And to me, without those teams, I am not sure that it would be feasible for the USASF to run the event.

 

[JulieP]

if there are less teams there, can't they make it two days instead of three? that would cut costs itself


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

I don't think Mickey negotiates mid-contract, but I could be wrong. To be honest, I don't know the particulars of the USASF's contract with Mickey, however my "real job" is in contracts and I am a paralegal. I would assume that their current contract (good through 2015, maybe?) is for a set number of days, possibly in conjuction with the contracts for the Varsity events there, and is likely not negotiable for the term of the contract. In theory though, less athletes = less days = less costs.

 

[CGAcheer]

As every single example of multi-tiered championships (college football, college basketball, soccer, Special Olympics, etc.) being used is held in different locations and/or different times/dates, I am assuming this is part of the proposal. If so, that could possibly alleviate most of the biggest problems with the current Worlds venue.

D1 should be in the Milkhouse, and D2 should be in Jostens

it should also possibly cut out the need for prelims, semis, and finals and eliminate the need for Monday

you may need to add some of the other divisions into jostens as well like Level 6 and iag5 to even it out to make scheduling work, but I think it would help alleviate some of the spectator type issues of "having to sit through all these teams I've never heard of to watch the teams I want to see" and it fixes some of the decision of what divisions get to be in the milkhouse and which are in jostens

 

[TheUltimateFan]

I understand and agree with the current comments regarding the need to reduce the overcrowding at Worlds, but I don't think the two topics should be co-mingled. How they split and schedule divisions could effectively address the overcrowding.

Scholarships, housing and all the other perks being offered are making it possible for more talented cheerleaders trained at smaller gyms to jump ship and relocate to a so-called 'mega gyms'. This isn't going to stop, it is going to continue to become even more prevalent as the 'package' size increases. Ten years ago this was virtually unheard of (or well-hidden). A lot has changed in 10 years. There is no reason to assume this will reverse direction in the next 10 years unless something happens to assist the smaller gyms in just, well, surviving.

I agree with those that say these practices are killing this sport. Having divisions may not be the optimum or the only solution, but at least it shows the smaller gyms that someone is hearing their voice and is willing to make the effort to allow their cheerleaders to be 'winners' too. And honestly, nobody but those cheerleaders and their coaches have the right to determine whether they should consider their win to be as meaningful as someone else's.

Personally, I'm not sure why anyone from a 'mega gym' would oppose this idea. This is just a return to our roots. We (at a gym of 50 or so at the time) were just as thrilled to make finals at UCA in our division 10 years ago - maybe even more thrilled- than we were to make finals our first year at Worlds 4 years later. It didn't diminish the success of the top teams in the larger divisions. But it got us hooked on the sport for life.

I do have one concern with the 0-175 (and even less) numbers I see bantered about here. Am I the only one that thinks that a gym with 200 or even 250 members is not likely to be able to consistently compete against gyms with thousands of athletes to choose from? Yes, I do know there are teams out there that have done and may do this on the odd year out. I just think that the powers-that-be need to do some hard analysis of the numbers to find the right cutoff point. I also assume they have considered that, without my input.

 

[5-6-7-8]

...

Personally, I'm not sure why anyone from a 'mega gym' would oppose this idea. This is just a return to our roots. We (at a gym of 50 or so at the time) were just as thrilled to make finals at UCA in our division 10 years ago - maybe even more thrilled- than we were to make finals our first year at Worlds 4 years later. It didn't diminish the success of the top teams in the larger divisions. But it got us hooked on the sport for life.
...

OK, I may be way off base, but I have been trying to get my head around all sides and theories (because I am quite good at analysis paralysis) and the only thing that I can think of that would sort of hurt the larger gyms is the possibility that they may not have as many athletes to choose from. For example, say smaller gym A only has 11-12 true level 5 athletes. What most likely happens to those athletes? They (some, all?) head over to bigger gym B for a chance at actually competing with other level 5 athletes. If somehow we can help smaller gyms retain those 11-12 true level 5 athletes (be it by creating D2, creating a "smaller" division of say 16 athletes on the floor, whatever) I'm all for it.

Otherwise the arguments of "cheapening Worlds" or similar arguments just don't make sense to me. I would think this just makes the D1 title even more of a big deal.

 

[Deleted member 28787]

I can only say this one way and I'm sorry if it sounds Mean... Stop lowering the bar... It seems like expectations for what is "exceptional" gets progressively less impressive every two years. I'm ashamed to say that I've been on 3 different teams who plain out did NOT deserve to compete at worlds. Even I can admit that and I was on the team... How about this proposal? Give out less bids. And instead of gym owners taking measures like dividing divisions to prevent their athletes from leaving to bigger gyms, how about you utilize the talent that you do have to your advantage. This isn't the pity party. Its the world cheer leading championship.


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

But, if the proposal does get passed, I REALLY REALLY REALLY like the idea of holding division II at a different venue :) :) :)


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

Okay well now that I think about it. I actually think this is a great idea on one condition: the division II venue is held at a different Disney park. This way, the division II teams still have a goal to strive towards instead of actually competing alongside the Division I teams and still being complacent with average...


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

 

[juscheerthatisall]

I definitely think this is a great idea. It in no way lessens the prestige I worlds just like being med sr instead of lg sr didn't lessen the prestige. The while purpose is to create a more level playing field among athletes. The major issue with the sport is that everyone is packing up and leaving smaller gyms bcuz they want to win and smaller gyms no matter how talented can't sustain when they are consistently losing athletes. Creating a DII division would allow smaller gyms a completely opposite opportunity at winning worlds. And I believe would deter a lot of athletes from leaving small gyms for larger ones. The only thing I don't agree with is the choice. There should be a number that constitutes large vs small and you compete where u fall. If u have 200 athletes in your gym the playing field is level is doesn't matter if one team is better then the other. They all have essentially the same resources

 

[tumbleyoda]

I understand and agree with the current comments regarding the need to reduce the overcrowding at Worlds, but I don't think the two topics should be co-mingled. How they split and schedule divisions could effectively address the overcrowding.

Scholarships, housing and all the other perks being offered are making it possible for more talented cheerleaders trained at smaller gyms to jump ship and relocate to a so-called 'mega gyms'. This isn't going to stop, it is going to continue to become even more prevalent as the 'package' size increases. Ten years ago this was virtually unheard of (or well-hidden). A lot has changed in 10 years. There is no reason to assume this will reverse direction in the next 10 years unless something happens to assist the smaller gyms in just, well, surviving.

I agree with those that say these practices are killing this sport. Having divisions may not be the optimum or the only solution, but at least it shows the smaller gyms that someone is hearing their voice and is willing to make the effort to allow their cheerleaders to be 'winners' too. And honestly, nobody but those cheerleaders and their coaches have the right to determine whether they should consider their win to be as meaningful as someone else's.

Personally, I'm not sure why anyone from a 'mega gym' would oppose this idea. This is just a return to our roots. We (at a gym of 50 or so at the time) were just as thrilled to make finals at UCA in our division 10 years ago - maybe even more thrilled- than we were to make finals our first year at Worlds 4 years later. It didn't diminish the success of the top teams in the larger divisions. But it got us hooked on the sport for life.

I do have one concern with the 0-175 (and even less) numbers I see bantered about here. Am I the only one that thinks that a gym with 200 or even 250 members is not likely to be able to consistently compete against gyms with thousands of athletes to choose from? Yes, I do know there are teams out there that have done and may do this on the odd year out. I just think that the powers-that-be need to do some hard analysis of the numbers to find the right cutoff point. I also assume they have considered that, without my input.

I agree. The only reasons I can see anyone from a mega gym opposing it is it makes it a little bit harder to pull/recruit those advanced athletes from the small gym if they have something viable they can shoot for and remain at their gym if they are truly happy. I can't even begin to count the amount of athletes that have left the smaller/lesser known gyms I worked for to go to the larger/well known gyms. Not all because they were unhappy or weren't being trained properly, but because of the realization that if they wanted to be competitive at Worlds and have a shot, at top ten placements or higher, they needed to change programs. Either that or the old I did it this way, they need to do it the same way - without acknowledging that the climate and culture of cheer is radically different from when they did it.

Make no mistake. As a small gym I want no pity parties. And most don't want it to be made easier either. I am different and can accept it. I can live without even trying for Worlds and that is what I feel is ultimately driving some of this. What I also think is happening is that more small gyms are realizing it and not pushing hard after Worlds - which as I have said before just the push to try to go to Worlds makes USASF/Varsity and EP's so much money before a bid is even handed out. As many at large bids as there are, there are many gyms that are not chasing/accepting them any more and that is what is at the heart of this IMO. If the push to go to Worlds dries up in the industry and teams other than the perceived top ten in each division stop chasing after it, the current Worlds model dries up. Yes the athletes get what they want - essentially the CL teams at Worlds only without teams like mine there - and no they will not show up just to watch, but USASF/Varsity makes a whole lot less $$$. Which is why as critical as I have been of USASF/Varsity I applaud them for at least looking at an option. McDonalds is not a weaker hamburger place for offering fish and salad offerings, it has become a stronger restaurant overall appealing to a much larger demographic. Shouldn't any business at least look at the if diversifying will help it's bottom line? Again it is a Worlds is a business first and a competition second. Sorry but that is the way it is.

As far as the number to be considered a small gym let's face it we have never, ever been able to even establish what constitutes a small gym - except to point at an ACE, CEA or Cheer Athletics and say smaller than them. A top of 200 or 250 could work depending on how it is broken down. I could see if a gym has two locations and there were zero crossovers at all between locations and were run totally as separate gyms, but then who says you can't have 5 or ten gyms in the same condition? If we truly eliminated or restricted crossovers with appropriate follow up I can see this.

 

[Cheergrandma]

I am only an interested Grandma but:
It seems that a lot of people are assuming small gym = less talented athletes. The size of the gym does not determine talent. As mentioned before, this would give "home grown" athletes a chance to compete without traveling to an out of state Mega Gym.

Also, maybe if you have the winners from each division compete for the "ultimate" worlds champion (e.g. Div I Lg Sr Coed compete against Div II Lg Sr Coed) ?

How exciting would that be? JMHO

 

[dmouth11]

I'm sorry, I'll admit that I skimmed pgs 8-12 of this thread because there's a lot going on, but I have a strong(er) opinion on this issue...

I am NOT for this at all... at all.

1. The main issue I keep seeing come up is that this will help small gyms survive. 100% not true. I'm not sure what will help the small gym thrive a little more than what is currently happening-->mass exodus to a bigger gym (trust me, I've seen it pretty bad in NJ this year). Fact is, separating the two will STILL make top caliber athletes thirsty to leave and push their skills to win the biggest title. As someone mentioned in the superbowl vs. college analogy, college kids work hard to win, but only because they ultimately want to make it to the NFL and WIN the superbowl... you don't win a college championship and then stay on the team? What?

2. Despite what everyone is saying, I'm still not a fan of what Worlds has become. Though I did have an amazing time attending Worlds and "competing", it's a waste of time on the judges' critical eye and honestly spectators who are there to see the best; we weren't going to win by any means. Less bids. Harder and more stacked regional/nationals [NCA, Indy, Cheersport, UCA, etc], and I think in the end we'll have a talent pool that's more fiercely contending for the title. That BS that we experienced with several teams this year due to there being too many teams and judges scoring being affected by how much earlier/later you competed would be better alleviated if we had less jank teams with their awesome Worlds shirts, sparkly new unis, but jank skills that don't deserve a medal... even if the best teams fall. I'm not saying Worlds show be an exclusive CA/CALI/WC/Rays/CEA/SOT showdown (which is already is), I'm saying that if a team is going down to Florida, it's not a "cmon guys, if we hit, we may make semis/finals..." I want, "let's hit, we have what it takes to medal." Disregarding Lg.Coed and Lg Sr, I'd say medium coed had the most depth of talented competitors [judging by how many could've/should've made finals IMO].

 

[TheUltimateFan]

..............
As far as the number to be considered a small gym let's face it we have never, ever been able to even establish what constitutes a small gym - except to point at an ACE, CEA or Cheer Athletics and say smaller than them. A top of 200 or 250 could work depending on how it is broken down. I could see if a gym has two locations and there were zero crossovers at all between locations and were run totally as separate gyms, but then who says you can't have 5 or ten gyms in the same condition? If we truly eliminated or restricted crossovers with appropriate follow up I can see this......

I didn't really think this part all the way through but this is a distinct possibility and the biggest loophole I see now. A larger gym that finds it financially beneficial could easily open another, smaller location and put it in their wife/husband/daughter/son's name or even place it under a shell corporation. Then they could send 20 or 30 or 60 of their excess and/or not-quite-good-enough L5 cheerleaders and a few of their lower levels over there. They could even carry the large gym name over with them to the new location - no legal reason not to if the owner of the name allows it. How does USASF legally enforce against that? They can't.

In some sense I think that this may become self-regulating, though. And not just for the larger gyms opening secondary gyms, but for those gyms who are classified as 'small' now too. If you are a solid gym with solid coaches and solid business practices and become too strong in your division and you keep winning in that division, you are still going to attract and retain more cheerleaders. Then you become too large for that division and move up.

I don't think allowing gyms to voluntarily compete up is going to help the smaller gyms. What have you really changed, then? In addition to the big-gym satellite gyms who could stack at a small location and choose whether or not to compete up to DI, there is always going to be one gym in the area that is technically small and statistically very unlikely to ever break through that glass ceiling to the top three at Worlds. But just by virtue of the fact that they are "gasp, awe, Going To Worlds" (add now "in D1") and can persuade their parents and cheerleaders that they should want that, will be enough to continue to take athletes away from their neighbors - just as they do today. Take that away and what you are left with is a means of rewarding the small gyms that attract business based on good coaching, good morals/ethics and solid business practices.

BTW, the McDonalds analogy - perfect.

 

[MissCongeniality]

200-250 equals a small gym? Not where I live! I'd say most of the small gyms here have 75-125 athletes. So to these gyms... 250 is a big gym! Heck, the gym my CP is at grew to just under 200 kids this year and everyone around here is looking at it thinking Woah! Mega gym!

Will this help those 200/250 gyms retain those athletes who run to mega gym every year in hopes of a ring? The reality is that as long as this industry gushes over and idolizes certain teams (and by extension the athletes on those teams)...features them all over YouTube and tv shows...Susie and Sammy are going to look for their 15 seconds of fame. I think all this will do is benefit the 200/250 teams by gaining athletes from the even smaller gyms.

 

[cheernerd5678]

I am only an interested Grandma but:
It seems that a lot of people are assuming small gym = less talented athletes. The size of the gym does not determine talent. As mentioned before, this would give "home grown" athletes a chance to compete without traveling to an out of state Mega Gym.

Also, maybe if you have the winners from each division compete for the "ultimate" worlds champion (e.g. Div I Lg Sr Coed compete against Div II Lg Sr Coed) ?

How exciting would that be? JMHO

It's not that they're less talented, they just have less resources. If you have, say, 175 athletes, you might have 20 with fulls. A couple with doubles. But when you're a mega gym with over a thousand athletes, along with people willing to travel to join your gym, you have more to choose from. You can get a squad full of doubles. So the mega gyms are more likely to be able to field a successful level 5 team because they have so many options to choose from and can make a whole squad of true level 5 athletes, versus a smaller gym that doesn't have that many options, and may have to put an athlete who truly belongs on a R5 team on the level 5 worlds team because they need them.
So it's not that they don't have talented athletes, it's that they don't have that many to choose from. And if they think they can field a strong level 5 team, they can choose to compete D1 according to the proposal

 

[5-6-7-8]

It's not that they're less talented, they just have less resources. If you have, say, 175 athletes, you might have 20 with fulls. A couple with doubles. But when you're a mega gym with over a thousand athletes, along with people willing to travel to join your gym, you have more to choose from. You can get a squad full of doubles. So the mega gyms are more likely to be able to field a successful level 5 team because they have so many options to choose from and can make a whole squad of true level 5 athletes, versus a smaller gym that doesn't have that many options, and may have to put an athlete who truly belongs on a R5 team on the level 5 worlds team because they need them.
So it's not that they don't have talented athletes, it's that they don't have that many to choose from. And if they think they can field a strong level 5 team, they can choose to compete D1 according to the proposal

And some smaller gyms may have say 10-12 true level 5 athletes, but in order to put a team of 20 on the mat, they complete the team with stronger level 4 athletes in order to keep those level 5 athletes.

 

[Ashley]

200-250 equals a small gym? Not where I live! I'd say most of the small gyms here have 75-125 athletes. So to these gyms... 250 is a big gym! Heck, the gym my CP is at grew to just under 200 kids this year and everyone around here is looking at it thinking Woah! Mega gym!

And most of those true small gyms with 100 athletes don't have a worlds team. That's what we're trying to discuss here - of the gyms at worlds, what is a good size to split them at. Not out of all the gyms across all levels.