All-Star From Courtney Pope - "the View From Backstage At The Naccc..."

[coachmomx2]

Not all at the same venue at the same time!

 

[BubbleToes]

Not that I want to stick my head in the lion's mouth...but,

Here is the original proposal to get rid of youth 5. Technically it did originate here in NJ ;)

http://usasf.net.ismmedia.com/ISM2//notesfrommeetings/L5_YouthTwo_7_24_10.pdf

Here's another one from NJ, also advocating getting rid of youth 5, but creating a Jr open instead.

http://usasf.net.ismmedia.com/ISM2//notesfrommeetings/L5_Youth_7_24_10.pdf

Here's yet another one from NJ (and the first from WC) advocating restricted tosses.

http://usasf.net.ismmedia.com/ISM2//notesfrommeetings/L5_YouthDivision_Baskets_6_2_10.pdf

Another one from WC advocating restricted tosses

http://usasf.net.ismmedia.com/ISM2//notesfrommeetings/L5_Youth_Baskets_6_3_10.pdf

Last one from WC (and last yth5 that I found) advocates restricted tumbling

http://usasf.net.ismmedia.com/ISM2//notesfrommeetings/L5_Youth_Tumbling_6_2_10.pdf

So, yes, it does look like all proposals concerning Youth 5 have come from us up here in Jersey. Have at it :p

WOW! You're a little "cheertective" aren't you!?!?!

 

[specialtpass]

Not that I want to stick my head in the lion's mouth...but,

Here is the original proposal to get rid of youth 5. Technically it did originate here in NJ ;)

http://usasf.net.ismmedia.com/ISM2//notesfrommeetings/L5_YouthTwo_7_24_10.pdf

Here's another one from NJ, also advocating getting rid of youth 5, but creating a Jr open instead.

http://usasf.net.ismmedia.com/ISM2//notesfrommeetings/L5_Youth_7_24_10.pdf

Here's yet another one from NJ (and the first from WC) advocating restricted tosses.

http://usasf.net.ismmedia.com/ISM2//notesfrommeetings/L5_YouthDivision_Baskets_6_2_10.pdf

Another one from WC advocating restricted tosses

http://usasf.net.ismmedia.com/ISM2//notesfrommeetings/L5_Youth_Baskets_6_3_10.pdf

Last one from WC (and last yth5 that I found) advocates restricted tumbling

http://usasf.net.ismmedia.com/ISM2//notesfrommeetings/L5_Youth_Tumbling_6_2_10.pdf

So, yes, it does look like all proposals concerning Youth 5 have come from us up here in Jersey. Have at it :p

The first proposal is to eliminate Y5 and the second is to eliminate Y5 and go to an Junior Open 5. These proposals are offered and supported by Just Cheer, NJ Spirit Explosion and Evolution all NJ gyms. The next three proposals are from WC and suggest tumbling and tossing restrictions as you stated. Mark Mazzuchelli (sp) who has been the Twinkle coach for a few years is suggesting the restrictions. This seems to suggest that WC wants the Y5 division just with restrictions? The other NJ gyms banding together to shut down Y5 now thats a whole new layer..lol

 

[ringchaser]

no one is disputing that suggestions came from nj, the beef here is the courtney pope comments about "self serving agenda's" as if she and Every gym owner isnt looking out for something that benefits themselves. please, parents arent stupid, this is a business.

 

[NEliteSteven]

Ok. This might be a really dumb comment, but I thought it, so I'm going to throw it out there. If everyone is saying that throwing XYZ skill in Youth 5 is so dangerous, and also saying that it's about safety, and kids not being ready to throw skills, etc....wouldn't you as a gym owner make the decision make the choice to say, this skill isn't worth winning for? Just my thought of the day.

 

[BubbleToes]

no one is disputing that suggestions came from nj, the beef here is the courtney pope comments about "self serving agenda's" as if she and Every gym owner isnt looking out for something that benefits themselves. please, parents arent stupid, this is a business.

Of course they are, but it sure does look like something more is going on here.

 

[cheermommaRN]

no one is disputing that suggestions came from nj, the beef here is the courtney pope comments about "self serving agenda's" as if she and Every gym owner isnt looking out for something that benefits themselves. please, parents arent stupid, this is a business.

That's what I feel is the most insulting part of all this is that the parents are being treated like we are morons. Every sport has some kind of drama behind it...sucky French judge ring a bell? It caused the whole scoring system of gymnastics to be changed. And we are very aware that this is business. I'm sure most of the rule changes came from a place of "how can this benefit me?" But to call out one gym and conviently ignore the fact that the other gyms with Y5 teams also supported the restrictions is tacky.
I mean honestly if Y5 was restricted who would it hurt most? Not Rays, WC, ECE, CA, ect because they have a place to put their "elites". But if you already have Jr 5 team in almost every combination possible and they're all full, I guess you would be a little nervous about possibly losing some athletes to another gym with room on their Jr 5 teams....

 

[CrownedtheGR8est]

As long as they don't get rid of mini 5

 

[newcheerdad]

Ok. This might be a really dumb comment, but I thought it, so I'm going to throw it out there. If everyone is saying that throwing XYZ skill in Youth 5 is so dangerous, and also saying that it's about safety, and kids not being ready to throw skills, etc....wouldn't you as a gym owner make the decision make the choice to say, this skill isn't worth winning for? Just my thought of the day.

Absolutely. And I think the fact that there are far more youth 4 teams than youth 5 teams illustrates that gym owners by and large think that level 4 is the appropriate "max" level for youth teams.

But as I said elsewhere, if there are teams with kids this young that can perform these skills competently and safely, then I don't see why they shouldn't be able to. I haven't heard a convincing argument otherwise.

As long as they don't get rid of mini 5

I said in another thread that I'm glad there isn't a mini 4 because my cp would want to do that. I couldn't imagine what she'd say if she found out there was a mini 5 team somewhere. :)

 

[cheer36mom]

if youth 5 is gone wont gyms then place those athletes on junior 5 teams?

 

[SharkDad]

Wow, just like the meetings, how did this one rule change that only affects less than 10 teams spark so much discussion? Before you read my post, know that I have not had the time yet to watch all the video of the meetings. I can speak to what I got out of this thread and will admit what I know and don't know. From some people's posts, I wish they did the same rather than speculate on what someone else is thinking or misuse their trust in allowing you to be their friend on Facebook by reposting their status without asking what they meant or permission to post their information. No more soapbox. . .here are some observations:

1. I believe the entire discussion of this thread misses the main point of the first post, that there were backdoor politics at the meetings that she really did not believe in and most of us didn't get to see. I have a few reports from friends that support that assumption, but I won't get emotional either way nor speculate unless I confirm it myself.

2. Consider the fact that the reason she posted the second "disputed and distasteful" post is because she knows of some more information that we don't. In that case it's not distasteful, but a fact. Respond to that if you wish, but don't speculate if it's wrong or not unless you ask her or Elaine. They both have a chance to confirm or deny the statement and I haven't seen either post either way. Again, I won't post my opinion on whether it was wrong to do because I don't know if it's correct or not.

3. Courtney usually doesn't post. Consider that fact that she might have stepped out on a limb because she is fighting for 36 kids she cares about and knows that they badly want the opportunity to compete against their friends across the country in youth L5. Any of you who thinks that 36 kids going or staying from her program are critical to her business don't understand the economics of her program anymore than the fact that those same kids truly love her enough to stay with her no matter what team she puts them on.

4. In my job I try very hard to understand the problem completely before trying to fix it. Then I make my adjustments in ways that truly fix it the problem, not knee-jerk reactions that just look good. The rationale I see people make for eliminating Y5 are:

Safety - the kids are not unsafe, coaches put them in unsafe situations. The fix for this seems to be for AACCA to tighten up their safety training and USASF to tighten up their level 5 certification standards and enforce them. How about a Youth L5 certification if we think it would improve youth skills profession safety?

Sloppiness/progressions- a simple sure-fire way to fix this is DEDUCTIONS. Hit coaches on the scoresheet and they will surely fix this problem or not risk sloppy skills. This is also the cheapest way to enforce standards for many other problems. If this was really a concern for coaches an gym owners then we should restrict Senior L5 standing fulls and doubles since many of them are sloppy and scary and scary as well.

Competition - eliminating an elite division will force YL5 kids to either make the JL5 division tougher or make it harder on YL4 teams that will complain in 2 years that we need a YL4.5 because the super gyms are too dominating. The good Youth L4 coaches should build their own YL5 teams in 3-5 years if they are building skills in their athletes properly. I hope we get a chance to see it.

5. (I know FINALLY!) I am sure some of you will say that I posted all of this to defend Courtney. I never defend her, she doesn't need it. What you should find consistent in everything I ever post (besides when I am playing) is that I try to stop emotional opinion that speculates about what someone's intentions are or what they are thinking. "I don't have a dog in this fight" but it doesn't look like many of you do either.

 

[4me2Kno]

I don't know if I really buy the whole canceling out the youth 5 division or restricting the skills in it tumbling or otherwise based on the "safety of the child" rational. I do feel that rules should be in place to keep athletes safe and promote proper progression, but limiting or killing the y5 division I don't think will do that. What is the youth division 11 years and under I think... So the issue is the industry wants to keep kids 11 and under safer by limiting the skills and ensure proper progression... Does the proposed changes to the youth 5 division accomplish this?

No

How many kids 11 and under are competing these elite skills on junior 5 teams? Who is going to police, protect, ensure the proper progression of these YOUTH aged kids who are just on junior 5 teams? I bet there are 10 times the amount of kids in this age bracket competing on junior teams than are kids on fielded youth 5 teams

You can't tell me that an 9 year old with a double full on a youth team is really any different than an 9 year old with a double full on a junior team?!?!?! One would get to perform the skill and one would not with the rule changes. These changes would not make sure the 9 year old double on the Jr 5 team was safer or progressed properly...

This is why I don't buy the whole safety of the kids angle, cause it doesn't keep all the kids in an age group under the same playing field... If there was a kid progressed too quick where safety may be a concern in that age group mom and dad can just bring her to a gym that will put her on a Jr 5 team. hey Susie is 10 with a scary double, just put her on a junior team and it's fine :(

I'm not even really sure how I feel about the whole debate, I just don't feel that the proposed "fixes" will accomplish what is intended. I've seen double fulls executed to perfection by a 10 year old 100 percent safe, and seen 4 Different kids at the same comp leave on stretchers with major knee injuries throwing doubles on senior teams...

The proposed changes do not apply evenly...

Im not saying this is what i want or would propose, but would answer the issue of keeping it safe for kids in this age group across the board would be if the usasf said the proposed rule change would only certify athletes 11 and under up to level 4, that would cover the whole age group not just the youth division... Yea it would basically still kill youth 5, but it would be fair across the board to protect all 11 year olds and under... Not leave a loophole that would let them be on jr 5 or sr 5 open teams... Again not what I would propose, but covers the issue in full...

I want a safe sport, with proper progression at all age groups and levels, especially at the 11 and under age group, but killing y5 or restricting it will not ensure kids this age are progressed any better or safer cause they can still go after those elite skills to be on a Jr 5 team or a sr open 5 team.

End of the day the responsibility will be on the coaches to stick to progressions whether it is an 8 or 18 year old...

My 2 cents

 

[xtremeteal4life]

The first proposal is to eliminate Y5 and the second is to eliminate Y5 and go to an Junior Open 5. These proposals are offered and supported by Just Cheer, NJ Spirit Explosion and Evolution all NJ gyms. The next three proposals are from WC and suggest tumbling and tossing restrictions as you stated. Mark Mazzuchelli (sp) who has been the Twinkle coach for a few years is suggesting the restrictions. This seems to suggest that WC wants the Y5 division just with restrictions? The other NJ gyms banding together to shut down Y5 now thats a whole new layer..lol

interesting how everyone assumes she's solely calling out WC when she said "our NJ friends"

 

[xtremeteal4life]

I understand your skepticism and I should have posted where it was written, It was said by her on FB on Joseph Carpinetti's wall. I was not being hypocritical, I was making an making observation that she blatently made the point that WC was pushing this for self-serving reasons when in the end all sides are self-serving in some way or another. It is okay to express ones self without putting another gym down. Large gym or small gym she is a coach who, by choosing the occupation she did, put herself in the position to be a role-model and leader. So the way she went about it was wrong and sets a bad example of how to express ones view to her athletes. She doesn't have to want to get rid of the division, she can express her views, all without calling out a specific gym. CEA has amazing athletes of all ages who should know this sport is filled with politics but how to handle everything in stride and with pride in themselves and it is my opinion that is not the example that was set.

umm, I'm pretty positive it wasn't posted on his fb, rather on Courtney's. I do not even believe he was tagged in it iirc

interesting how everyone assumes she's solely calling out WC when she said "our NJ friends"

 

[xtremeteal4life]

How can you make such an argument. As a parent I think our children's safety should be taken into account just as much as the bottom line of a Gym, if not more. As a coach and owner and a parent I would think you would have to agree. You as every other owner put your bottom line first. You have to, If you can not make ends meet than there will be no program. Your Program Does Not have an off season, if you did you would lose income. Your program encourages cross overs, agin it is a business model and choice that works for you, and you have argued for it, but it also can be argued is not a safe one for young athletes.



We have no season, it goes 12 months a year. There is no off time for these kids to rest and get healthy. Ask any Orthopedic or Trainer in any sport, the body needs time off to recover and get stronger. EVERY MAJOR SPORT has an off season. For the simple fact that the athletes need the time to rest.


The human body no matter the age can not take the punishment. There needs to be time off for the body to recover no matter your age. We need to set rules of progression to keep our sport strong.


The health of the child athlete should be protected by parents and coaches alike, as well as the NACC, USASF and its Member Gyms. There will still be a place for these kids to compete. There will always be a place for the Highly Skilled Talented Child to compete, Those few are the minority however and will allow the majority to progress and be in the proper division as the progress.

I see no harm that will come from this possible rule change. If it protects a child from injury, forces progression as well as helping the bottom line, How is that so bad? As a Coach and a Parent I would hope you felt the same.

"Save the Cheerleader"

Pardon me sir, but you have no right to comment on another person's parental abilities when you do not even have your facts straight.
#1 Courtney has two girls who cheer at CEA and if you think safety isn't a concern of hers you are sorely mistaken. For you to even insinuate that she would put her bottom line before the safety of her own kids is out of line.
#2 Yes we do have an off season...no one is required to attend (and many do not) starting in May. The gym is still opened to those who wish to further their skills for upcoming tryouts and/or still wish to train or have something to do in the summer. So once again your "safety" concerns and/or comments are incorrect and out of line since you did not bother to actually check your facts first.
#3 Just bc other programs you know have to keep their athletes year round to make money obviously doesn't mean that holds true for everyone.