- Apr 27, 2010
- 585
- 874
Except McDonalds isn't the only burger in town. If it was, and people complained about it, don't you think they should improve the burger before adding the salads and fish?
All-Star Division I And Division Ii At Worlds - Big Gym Separation
DON'T LURK... Join The Discussion!
Members can REMOVE the ads for FREE... join today!
- Jul 23, 2012
- 793
- 2,735
Is this going to turn into another burger and fries thread? Because if so I'm in.
- Apr 27, 2010
- 585
- 874
I'm actually the 3% of their business that likes their salads. But ironically, I also don't complain about their burger!
- Jun 6, 2013
- 16
- 48
I agree Cheergrandma, it also seems to me that a lot of people assume that small gym = less talented athletes. Or those few at the small gym that do have Level 5 skills should just pack it in a move on to the larger gym because the rest just have "jank" skills. I know that's not the intent, just the impression I get. I'm a "Polly Anna" though and I always clap/cheer for everyteam at a competition. I'm impressed with all, as I can trip over my own feet! :p
.
- Mar 31, 2010
- 1,399
- 810
when reading "less talented athletes" you have to remember that for this discussion someone may mean that they have a smaller number of talented athletes versus the athletes themselves are less talented.
So yes, smaller gyms do have Less/fewer talented Athletes
- Dec 17, 2009
- 153
- 158
The more I think of this idea, the more I like it. There are many concerns that have been raised, but with a little bit of thought I definitely think they can be worked through.
I agree that the D2 needs to be at a different location than the D1 competition. I'm not saying it can't be held at Disney, but on a different stage than at WWoS, probably in a separate park, or at a hall in a nearby convention center. If it would work logistically to bring the D2 finals into the Milk House, than why not? Just be very wary of overcrowding issues.
As far as the cut-off to qualify for D1 vs. D2 based on population of the gyms, I say throw that away completely and simplify. Instead, simply have it set up so that if there is any L5 Senior team that wants to be a candidate for a Words bid they must declare their intention to be D1 or D2 before the first Bid competition of the year (November). It doesn't matter the size of your gym. I would add one stipulation though. If a team that declares as D2 realizes that they might like to have a shot and compete with the D1 teams, they may re-declare by March 15 (or some time within a few days of NCA giving out their bids). It doesn't work the other way though, if you declare D1 early, you have to stick with it.
This would allow EPs to be a little more selective in their awarding of paid bids. I would imagine that most EPs would want to have D1 teams representing their brand, so they would be given the ability to decide early how they are going to award bids. Not saying they won't give paid bids to D2 teams, but they will still have some control as to how their bid will be represented.
It would become a trade-off for teams as they decide to go D1 or D2. To me, if a team wants to have the challenge to compete on the big stage with the best in the world and possible hold their own, they go D1 and let the cards fall as they may. Other gyms who realistically know how they stack up will be smart to declare L2.
I agree that the D2 needs to be at a different location than the D1 competition. I'm not saying it can't be held at Disney, but on a different stage than at WWoS, probably in a separate park, or at a hall in a nearby convention center. If it would work logistically to bring the D2 finals into the Milk House, than why not? Just be very wary of overcrowding issues.
As far as the cut-off to qualify for D1 vs. D2 based on population of the gyms, I say throw that away completely and simplify. Instead, simply have it set up so that if there is any L5 Senior team that wants to be a candidate for a Words bid they must declare their intention to be D1 or D2 before the first Bid competition of the year (November). It doesn't matter the size of your gym. I would add one stipulation though. If a team that declares as D2 realizes that they might like to have a shot and compete with the D1 teams, they may re-declare by March 15 (or some time within a few days of NCA giving out their bids). It doesn't work the other way though, if you declare D1 early, you have to stick with it.
This would allow EPs to be a little more selective in their awarding of paid bids. I would imagine that most EPs would want to have D1 teams representing their brand, so they would be given the ability to decide early how they are going to award bids. Not saying they won't give paid bids to D2 teams, but they will still have some control as to how their bid will be represented.
It would become a trade-off for teams as they decide to go D1 or D2. To me, if a team wants to have the challenge to compete on the big stage with the best in the world and possible hold their own, they go D1 and let the cards fall as they may. Other gyms who realistically know how they stack up will be smart to declare L2.
- Apr 27, 2010
- 585
- 874
Exactly! Which is why I say improve the Big Mac before you focus on the Filet O' Fish. Although the fish and salad is more analogous to The Summit. What their proposing is adding a Big Mac Lite, and that's just not necessary.
Back to your original post, I think there are still other things they can do to improve the industry. I'm critical of USASF/Varsity as well, and I'd rather them take a proactive approach, rather than a reactive approach to the possible Burger King opening in Philadelphia.
- Feb 4, 2010
- 5,486
- 19,660
Cheergrandma said: ↑
I think the majority of us don't feel that way at all. As someone else already stated, it is a numbers game. Using an example of the law of averages, say 10% of any program's athletes have solid, competitive, level 5 skills. This means that a program of 500 athletes should have 50 level 5 athletes to pull from - enough to make 2 quality Worlds teams. A program of 250 would have enough for a small or medium quality team. A program of 125 would have to have a small team made up of 50% solid level 5 athletes and 50% of athletes with skills lower than level 5. The 12 kids from the small gym may have all of the same skills as the 50 kids from the large gym, but there is no way the team from the small gym can be as competitive as the team from the large gym.
I think this thread has had some great posts. I am a proponent of the two divisions for the small all girl and small coed, but I can completely understand those that don't agree with it. I am for it for the exact reason @Nelitesteven said - I am concerned that 5 or 10 years from now the average program won't even have the opportunity to go to Worlds because they won't be able to field a level 5 team. Worlds will be made up of a dozen programs with maybe 3 teams per program, and since not every athlete has the resources and/or ability to move away from home or commute 2 hours each way to practice, the industry will lose many talented athletes.
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 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
I think the majority of us don't feel that way at all. As someone else already stated, it is a numbers game. Using an example of the law of averages, say 10% of any program's athletes have solid, competitive, level 5 skills. This means that a program of 500 athletes should have 50 level 5 athletes to pull from - enough to make 2 quality Worlds teams. A program of 250 would have enough for a small or medium quality team. A program of 125 would have to have a small team made up of 50% solid level 5 athletes and 50% of athletes with skills lower than level 5. The 12 kids from the small gym may have all of the same skills as the 50 kids from the large gym, but there is no way the team from the small gym can be as competitive as the team from the large gym.
I think this thread has had some great posts. I am a proponent of the two divisions for the small all girl and small coed, but I can completely understand those that don't agree with it. I am for it for the exact reason @Nelitesteven said - I am concerned that 5 or 10 years from now the average program won't even have the opportunity to go to Worlds because they won't be able to field a level 5 team. Worlds will be made up of a dozen programs with maybe 3 teams per program, and since not every athlete has the resources and/or ability to move away from home or commute 2 hours each way to practice, the industry will lose many talented athletes.
- Jul 23, 2012
- 793
- 2,735
Amen to that. I understand that many details need to be worked out and even after the change is implemented there will be kinks that have to be fixed over the first few years of implementation. It won't be perfect. But something needs to be done to allow small gyms to succeed in Level 5, because as much as we complain about having to watch 50 teams before we get to see the ones we're waiting for, we'll be complaining even more when Worlds is only 3 hours long because there are less than twenty gyms in attendance. That might seem hyperbolic but clearly that's the direction things are going and unless things change, that's how I truly see it happening in 10-15 years.
MissCongeniality
Cheer Parent
- Dec 14, 2009
- 3,024
- 8,822
I know. I totally get that. But don't we want to see those small gyms succeed? Or is it ok for them to continue to lose their level 5 athletes to the mega gyms and now the not so mega gyms as well? Industry wide how many gyms fall into each category?
- Jan 9, 2012
- 722
- 1,514
Great point. My guess is they would give it to their marketing analysts and have them crunch the numbers to figure out which change would give them the greatest $$$ return while sustaining or improving customer satisfaction ratings. Same thing USASF is probably doing with this idea. ;)
- Feb 1, 2010
- 466
- 847
Why should the number of athletes in you program designate you divI or divII?
- Jan 20, 2010
- 5,666
- 9,254
I think there's a difference between creating a D2 so small gyms with a legitimate level 5 team can succeed and creating a D2 so small gyms can create level 5 teams where only half the team has level 5 skills. Unless we set bids aside for these new divisions, those real small gyms wouldn't even be able to get one.
And as for numbers, we don't know. That's what the USASF will figure out.
We all know you're against it, but if you had to designate teams as DI or DII how would you do it?
MissCongeniality
Cheer Parent
- Dec 14, 2009
- 3,024
- 8,822
I understand what you are saying. And I have honestly tried to see the pros and cons of the current system as well as the one proposed. I am sure there will be tweaks etc. but for now I just think all this will do is create 3 tiers. The true small gyms, the medium gyms (those 200/250s that have "legitimate" level 5 teams) and the large gyms. I think the small gyms will continue to lose their few level 5 athletes they have "grown" to the medium and large gyms who have Worlds teams (whether those teams be D1 or D2). I think you will still have a problem of athletes jumping ship... just now there will be two tiers of ships to jump to and that will open up more opportunities... Do you jump from the dingy to the yacht or are you happy with the schooner?
If the "small gym" (as we are discussing) has a "legitimate" level 5 team... why can't they succeed on their own merits? I look at a division like Medium Coed where I'd say the top 20 teams were all competitive and fairly close in strength (both at NCA and Worlds). In that division there were "small" and "mega" gyms in that top 20. All the teams were successful. They were all extremely talented. It honestly came down to who hit and who didn't. At NCA the point spread in the top 10 teams was insanely close. I have no clue what it was at Worlds but I imagine it was close as well!
Anyway... just my thoughts. There is honestly no right or wrong answer right now... both the current and proposed solutions are flawed in my opinion.
Similar threads
- Anonymous
- High School Cheerleading
