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

[Ashley]

Why can't it be considered the same gym if it is the same name, same tax id and/or same ownership/staff?

I think the idea is that they could use a different tax id to get around it.

Then what is the point of all this Div 1/Div 2 talk if a mega-gym can also compete as Div 2 because their satellite gym has smaller numbers than the determined cut-off? I thought that one of the deciding factors was not only the number of athletes at a gym but if a gym had multiple locations or satellite gyms as well. Reading that post from @BlueCat makes me feel like the proposed split is now a just big game for the mega-gyms to play so that they can have Worlds teams not competing against each other.

Well the problem is we need to define what constitutes one program with multiple locations. It's easy enough to count all of the CEAs together, for example, but what about all the Varsity owned "Premier" gyms - are those separate entities or one entity?

 

[CheerBank]

I think the idea is that they could use a different tax id to get around it.

This makes me so angry, even that the thought of that idea is floating around. Just put the whole proposal into the bull$hit pile for me. Because then, what is the point of making the split?

 

[Just-a-Mom]

Why wouldn't the rule be, "Fine. Don't share a tax id with your satellite locations. However you cannot share anything else either - coaches, athletes, etc."

In which case who cares? The satellite location is then in the same boat as any other smaller program - trying to convince athletes that live close enough to mega gym to go to smaller gym. If mega gym wants to go through all this to win D2 also, there is no way to prevent it completely. But as long as they can't share coaches or athletes, I don't see the problem.

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

 

[quitthedrama]

Why wouldn't the rule be, "Fine. Don't share a tax id with your satellite locations. However you cannot share anything else either - coaches, athletes, etc."

In which case who cares? The satellite location is then in the same boat as any other smaller program - trying to convince athletes that live close enough to mega gym to go to smaller gym. If mega gym wants to go through all this to win D2 also, there is no way to prevent it completely. But as long as they can't share coaches or athletes, I don't see the problem.

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

Thanks - that was the point I was trying to make. Can't share name, staff, ownership, athletes. It seems like an easy rule that makes sense. Maybe that's the problem!

 

[tumbleyoda]

IMO there are three type of gyms: The top tier gyms that generally are extremely competitive, the second tier gyms that may be competitive but is more fun program where hitting a routine means more than the final placement, and the we just opened our doors and are glad to be here even if we have no clue type gym. There are I believe more gyms in tiers 2 and 3 than are in one. And all have money to spend and want to compete somewhere.

Personally I have long been a proponent of such a split, because whether we like to admit it or not there is a divide especially at the Level 5 division. There is simply no way some gyms can compete with gyms that can afford to scholarship the majority of their Worlds team athletes. The gyms that are able to give to their athletes free or greatly reduced in price uniforms, shoes, bows, etc because companies are willing to sponsor them also has a financial advantage over a gym that has the parents paying for everything. Not hating folks, just stating facts. :-) A gym that has numerous athletes that can step in on a moments notice or will relocate cross country just for a chance to be on their team has an advantage over a gym that if one person gets injured or quits there really is not a good replacement for that person in the gym.

Frankly I do not believe the "small gym" is crying foul about the competitive advantages some gyms have over them. It is what it is, like it or not. I have not seen a why is the small gym not attending worlds type survey. People may be taking anecdotal evidence (questions asked at competitions and informal conversations) and coming to that conclusion however. What I do feel is Varsity/USASF and EP's that offer Worlds Bids are losing $$$ off those gyms not chasing the dream of going to Worlds. Many smaller, lesser known, unlikely to be hyped or tweeted about type gyms know their Level 5 team won't stack up competitively against the top tier gyms because they are not built the same way, don't have the same demographic to build continually strong teams year after year or are not built for the same purpose/goal/vision of Worlds. Gyms that could potentially put level 5 teams together for fun are not, gyms that can't max out numbers of athletes or skills to be competitive with the top tier gyms are choosing to either go restricted or level 4 rather than push to Level 5 with a routine that will get slammed for not being Level 5 enough to compete with the top tier gyms out there. Gyms that would of in the past gladly accepted an At Large bid are not, choosing other end of year events if they don't get a Full Paid or Partial Paid bid. Now you add to the mix the numerous new end of year events (All Star Games, Epic, Revolution, Champions League, etc.) all with the possible ability to draw more programs away from the Varsity/USASF Worlds chase, if they are run well and have great results. IMO Varsity/USASF needs to find another way to get that positive vibe and $$$ flowing again. Which is a smart business move for them, even if it is cloaked in the "we are looking out for the small gym" feel good speak. There are more small gyms than Mega gyms so lets reach out to them.

My original thought was simply making the division split for the regular year, not at Worlds. Leave Worlds alone. Worlds would be for D1. D2 would have, now that it has been created, Summit. Rather than split by numbers a gym can choose by September to be D1 or D2 as it fits their program vision, goals, demographics and aspirations. A gym could move up from D2 in the year by written request, or lets say winning D2 Championships but once up to D1 could not move back down to D2. The D1 or D2 designation would affect all teams in the gym and would not allow a gym to be D1 for Worlds purposes only and D2 for every other level. A D1 gym could not compete Level 5 at D2 Championships - if it was Summit use the same crossover rules. EP's could still combine if there were not enough teams in each Division, but I feel like it would help gyms more to know that they are competing against a similar competitor and show them the top tier programs and give them goals to aspire to at the same event.

Sorry for the ramble.

 

[King]

You don't have to offer insurance unless you have the equivalent of 50 full time staff members. Does Cheer Athletics even have that?

Stingrays has 60 or so people and my wife got an insurance thing.

 

[King]

All that has to happen is that each gym / physical location has to be defined as it's singular gym. I would do it by tax id / physical location. Then before people tryout they have to choose to register at one gym via the USASF system. You making the system mutually exclusive and only allow people to register at one 'gym'. Then insurance only covers the athletes that practice physically at their defined location.

 

[Ashley]

Stingrays has 60 or so people and my wife got an insurance thing.

They have the equivalent of 60 full time staffers?! I can see 60 staff members, but I would imagine most would be part time and you would need 2 or 3 to equal a full time employee. Wow.


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

 

[King]

They have the equivalent of 60 full time staffers?! I can see 60 staff members, but I would imagine most would be part time and you would need 2 or 3 to equal a full time employee. Wow.


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

I don't think they have 60 full time. I don't know the specifics of the health care law for small businesses (for once when it comes to politics I ignored that piece because it doesn't effect me). We did get some letter from Rays talking about health care that I also didn't bother to read because I get coverage for the fam through my day job.

 

[Ashley]

I don't think they have 60 full time. I don't know the specifics of the health care law for small businesses (for once when it comes to politics I ignored that piece because it doesn't effect me). We did get some letter from Rays talking about health care that I also didn't bother to read because I get coverage for the fam through my day job.

All employees who work 30+ hours a week are considered full time. For the other employees, you add up the hours to find the number of full-time equivalents - so 3 employees who work 10 hours a week equal one full time equivalent. If you have more than 50 full time equivalent (FTE) employees, you have to offer all of your full time employees (30+ hours a week) insurance.

Rays would basically have to have time sheets that total 1500 or more hours a week to have to offer insurance. I'm not sure I see this affecting even the largest gyms just yet.

Small business advice: How to count full-time and part-time employees under Obamacare - On Small Business - The Washington Post

 

[p.o.k.]

Thanks - that was the point I was trying to make. Can't share name, staff, ownership, athletes. It seems like an easy rule that makes sense. Maybe that's the problem!

Not sure how this would be regulated? All that would have to happen is a release would be signed by the gym that has the same name but a different tax id.

 

[BlueCat]

Then what is the point of all this Div 1/Div 2 talk if a mega-gym can also compete as Div 2 because their satellite gym has smaller numbers than the determined cut-off? I thought that one of the deciding factors was not only the number of athletes at a gym but if a gym had multiple locations or satellite gyms as well. Reading that post from @BlueCat makes me feel like the proposed split is now a just big game for the mega-gyms to play so that they can have Worlds teams not competing against each other.

We are strongly opposed to the split, as are most "mega-gyms" (as far as I know.) It certainly wasn't our idea. I think it is bad for the industry and specifically bad for USASF Worlds for multiple reasons. However, we believe it would probably be good for CA in the long run.

 

[drewpate]

We are strongly opposed to the split, as are most "mega-gyms" (as far as I know.) It certainly wasn't our idea. I think it is bad for the industry and specifically bad for USASF Worlds for multiple reasons. However, we believe it would probably be good for CA in the long run.

I too think it would be overall good for bigger gyms but bad for the industry as well. Smaller gyms have enough problems retaining athletes and keeping them from jumping ship to larger gyms without being told that even if they win worlds it's only division 2. Making it seem less important in anyway, name or otherwise will most likely increase migration to d1 gyms.

I do appreciate trying to make smaller divisions for some of the packed ones but there has to be a better way around it. I was thinking maybe split them into two divisions day 1 with different judging panels, randomly split with an even number of paid bids in each division, top ten of each go into a finals (so twenty teams in finals instead of ten) or do it three days to wear the top ten of each split division compete for ten finals spot.

Ps @BlueCat Don't take my post as anti large gym or criticism for 'taking' athletes from smaller gyms. You've put in the time and effort and deserve all the athletes you get and I'm a big fan of the program . This post is entirely from the perspective of what is good for my gym, which I think meshes with the industry needs.

 

[BlueCat]

True, but if they did, they would not be able to "share" athletes from their larger locations, correct?

Under the current system, there is an easy work-around. Either gym can just sign a release at any point.

Why can't it be considered the same gym if it is the same name, same tax id and/or same ownership/staff?

Getting a new tax ID & name are not difficult. (CA Plano, CA Austin). To my knowledge, ownership isn't tracked by USASF.

Not every perceived problem can be solved by throwing new safety guidelines, rules, or age grid changes at it. I get the desire to "do something", but sometimes the right solution isn't always the most obvious one.

While the USASF overall is mostly well-intentioned, few would accuse it of being effective, efficient, or expeditious. The "solutions" we end up with are often less desirable than the "problems" they were intended to solve. (Example: athlete registration system.)

 

[King]

Under the current system, there is an easy work-around. Either gym can just sign a release at any point.



Getting a new tax ID & name are not difficult. (CA Plano, CA Austin). To my knowledge, ownership isn't tracked by USASF.

Not every perceived problem can be solved by throwing new safety guidelines, rules, or age grid changes at it. I get the desire to "do something", but sometimes the right solution isn't always the most obvious one.

While the USASF overall is mostly well-intentioned, few would accuse it of being effective, efficient, or expeditious. The "solutions" we end up with are often less desirable than the "problems" they were intended to solve. (Example: athlete registration system.)

That is very true. I find we get caught between giving an answer right now vs waiting for the right answer to come along. Not that the middle is always the right way to go (that is a fallacy) but a better blend of the two approaches would really help cheer.

To me it's less about creating a rule to stop one specific thing and more about creating an environment people can flourish in.



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