All-Star Gym Owners Refusing To Sign Release... Appeal Process?..

[GreatWhite92]

If you are "paying to play" then this also leaves the gym with the responsibility of keeping their costumers. If a child wants to leave and you won't let them, are they really worth keeping around anyways? they prob are not going to work as hard and that just hurts the team. I like the above proposal because it limits that you can only ask for release once a year and not in consecutive years so it does discourage gym hopping but it also encourages gyms to keep up their product and make people want to stay. Again if a family wants to leave and you wont let them, they aren't worth keeping around anyways.

 

[CharlotteASMom]

But without set guidelines on a release there is nothing to appeal.

The above proposal is changing the essence of the rule. The proposed job was to determine what is an exceptable reason for appeal and how can you prove that.

Also in my very humble opinion it's getting way too complicated. From my business experience, when you make a proposal that exceeds 2-3 paragraphs (especially when you are trying to convince the entity that created the rule) you almost always get declined.

 

[Just-a-Mom]

I thought the purpose of this thread and the offer by Andre was to establish an appeals process?

The heart of this rule is to stop athletes from leaving after November 1st. We went from a system that gave no control to the gym to one that gave them a little control. We need to focus on the appeal side not re-writing the rule. Like ACEDAD said, this works for most the people out there. The few that it doesn't should have an appeals option.

I think the problem most people are having is that we didn't give then a little control, we gave them all the control. The way the rule is written right now the gym has 100% of the power. I mean yes, the obvious answer is "don't change gyms" but I gotta say it's a tough pill for a lot of people to swallow in some of these situations. And I'm confused about why even in an appeals process we want to write that in a way that favors the gym. Why on earth should I have to prove the gym closed??? If they're refusing to release an athlete, why don't they need to prove why? I just don't understand why, when the whole reason we even need an appeals process is because of shady gym owners who use the release for spite, are we still trying to make the whole process benefit them?

The reason for the rule was to stop gym hopping. Ok, so the few bad apples spoiled the bunch and we all had to get a rule (much like most rules). Well now a few bad apples spoiled the rule by misusing it. So put it on them. "Hey, gym owners. A few of your colleagues ruined this for you. So now if you want to deny a release, if the athlete appeals it, you're going to have to have a reason with documentation." (eg. if the athlete says your business closed, you have 30 days to prove it didn't or the athlete automatically gets released.)

As for the time/money involved for USASF, when this came up last year many of us said we'd do it for free. Put together an appeals committee. And stop making rules if you don't have enough resources to enforce them fairly. I feel like the USASF makes a lot of really good rules without completely figuring out the logistics of enforcing them. (I could go on for days about this part...crossovers, age of competitors, etc.)

Ok. Off my soapbox. :oops: Carry on with your proposal.

 

[Deleted member 15]

I thought the purpose of this thread and the offer by Andre was to establish an appeals process?

I'm ok with a proposal to change whatever the crowd feels needs changing. My request is a well thought out and written solution, not a restatement of the problem.

 

[CharlotteASMom]

I think the problem most people are having is that we didn't give then a little control, we gave them all the control.

The gym only gets control after November 1st and that control only extends to Worlds. They can cheer at any competition except Worlds. If you feel that everything is about Worlds (and while it's not my opinion I appreciate that some do) then yes the gym has control by then.

 

[CharlotteASMom]

I'm ok with a proposal to change whatever the crowd feels needs changing. My request is a well thought out and written solution, not a restatement of the problem.

Fair enough...

 

[Deleted member 15]

And stop making rules if you don't have enough resources to enforce them fairly. I feel like the USASF makes a lot of really good rules without completely figuring out the logistics of enforcing them. (I could go on for days about this part...crossovers, age of competitors, etc.)

The athletes/families give the power to the gyms when they agree to attend that gym and compete with that gym after November 1st. In that sense I can make the statement the power is 100% with the athlete/families and it holds more water than the claims the power is 100% with the gym.

The process is fair, but many don't like it. As is it applies to everyone the same, it's easily enforceable and there is no way the USASF can even be accused of favoring a gym or person in the release process. What would make it more fair?

 

[Cheer Dad]

The gym only gets control after November 1st and that control only extends to Worlds. They can cheer at any competition except Worlds. If you feel that everything is about Worlds (and while it's not my opinion I appreciate that some do) then yes the gym has control by then.

but the release was originally intended for the Worlds teams as those were the ones with all the gym hopping and recruiting going on.

 

[newcheerdad]

The above proposal is changing the essence of the rule. The proposed job was to determine what is an exceptable reason for appeal and how can you prove that.

Also in my very humble opinion it's getting way too complicated. From my business experience, when you make a proposal that exceeds 2-3 paragraphs (especially when you are trying to convince the entity that created the rule) you almost always get declined.

An appeals process is no less complicated, and in some ways it's more so. Here are the things you need to address in any appeals or request process:

-When can a release take place? Can I request one two weeks before worlds, and then appeal because the gym owner wouldn't sign it? You still have to come up with a timing mechanism that allows the gym owner ample time to review a release request, the athlete time to appeal it, and an appeals board time to review it and make a decision.

-What grounds does an athlete have to request a release? Does an athlete get to leave because their gym stopped fielding a level 5 team? Because the gym closed? Because they got into a fight with the coach?

-What grounds does a gym have to deny a release? Can a gym deny a release for any reason, or are there specific criteria as to why a gym can deny a release? And does the gym have to provide those reasons to the athlete in writing, or can they just say no. (probably the former if you want to actually know what you're appealing)

Keep in mind that for the two items above, you're probably going to want very specific, objective criteria. If a gym closed, you'll need some way to determine that. If a gym denies a release because (for example) they believe the athlete is recruited, how do they determine that?

-Who is the group that hears the appeal? And what are the mechanics of the appeal process?

-What's the penalty if an athlete is found to be improperly rostered on a world's team? Is that penalty the same or different if it's found before, during, or after receiving a bid? Is it the same as using an ineligible athlete in other circumstances? What if the team competes at world's with an athlete that isn't really a member of that team? (I know what athlete registration this shouldn't be an issue, but things happen.)

The questions I asked were more than 3 paragraphs. I'm not sure how you distill a proposal into less than that.

 

[CharlotteASMom]

but the release was originally intended for the Worlds teams as those were the ones with all the gym hopping and recruiting going on.

Yes which is my point. Gyms don't have all the control unless you believe that someone can't make a decison about their gym by Nov 1 and your only goal for the year is to go to Worlds.

 

[Deleted member 15]

[*]Do nothing. If the athlete's current gym chooses not to respond to the release request, the athlete is automatically released from their commitment to their current gym 90 days from the date the release request was received by the USASF. During this time, the athlete is NOT allowed to compete with any other program other than the one they are currently affiliated with.

The way I read this statement it's more restrictive because the athlete can't change gyms and compete with a non Worlds team until released. Is that correct/intentional.

 

[newcheerdad]

The athletes/families give the power to the gyms when they agree to attend that gym and compete with that gym after November 1st. In that sense I can make the statement the power is 100% with the athlete/families and it holds more water than the claims the power is 100% with the gym.

The process is fair, but many don't like it. As is it applies to everyone the same, it's easily enforceable and there is no way the USASF can even be accused of favoring a gym or person in the release process. What would make it more fair?

I'll turn this rule around.

On November 2, a gym has carte blanche to do whatever they want. They can change coaches, get into financial trouble, or do morally disagreeable things, and athletes have no recourse if they want to leave that program and compete on another Worlds' team. They must get a release signed by their current gym, who has no obligation to sign that release or even explain why they won't. There is no process by which the athlete can appeal the decision.

Doesn't sound all that fair when I put it that way, does it?

In the end, I think you either need a clear appeals process with criteria by which an athlete is allowed to leave and a gym is allowed to deny a request...or you need a process by which an athlete is allowed to leave after sitting out for a period of time as a penalty. Otherwise the process isn't fair, and I won't be convinced otherwise.

 

[kristenthegreat]

If you are "paying to play" then this also leaves the gym with the responsibility of keeping their costumers. If a child wants to leave and you won't let them, are they really worth keeping around anyways? they prob are not going to work as hard and that just hurts the team. I like the above proposal because it limits that you can only ask for release once a year and not in consecutive years so it does discourage gym hopping but it also encourages gyms to keep up their product and make people want to stay. Again if a family wants to leave and you wont let them, they aren't worth keeping around anyways.

My problem is that some people confuse 'paying to play' with 'I can do what I want whenever I want because I'm giving you money.' Even AAU Volleyball makes you wait 60 days AND request a release. No other sport had such free-for-all options, yet all have major nationals.

Also- if an athlete is on scholarship, how do you handle the 'all fees must be settled' business? Are they expected to pay back what they WOULD have owed? Since you signed a scholarship agreement, do they owe you nothing? Plus, if it's a boy (and, forgive me if this is a bad assumption, I'm going to go out on a limb and say the majority of gym hopping is done by boys due to simple numbers and demand)- many guys are offered scholarships. Or could easily be as an incentive (like the lovely double full scholarships) "The gym should be working harder to keep them" doesn't quite apply if 'working hard' means giving away money you don't have.

They are free to compete at any other competition. Just not Worlds.

 

[newcheerdad]

The way I read this statement it's more restrictive because the athlete can't change gyms and compete with a non Worlds team until released. Is that correct/intentional.

I can be convinced either way. If you want it to be more restrictive, it would absolutely make someone think twice about gym hopping they couldn't even compete senior restricted 5 or 4 for three months. If you want it to be less restrictive, then the rule would only apply to teams competing for bids in Worlds' divisions.

 

[newcheerdad]

My problem is that some people confuse 'paying to play' with 'I can do what I want whenever I want because I'm giving you money.' Even AAU Volleyball makes you wait 60 days AND request a release. No other sport had such free-for-all options, yet all have major nationals.

I thought the rule was that if you competed for a different team in the last 60 days that you needed a release, and once the 60 days was up you were free to move.


AAU Volleyball > Resources > FAQ


There is a player who wants to join a team in our club who used to play for another club in our area. What do we need to do to attach that player?

If that player has played in an AAU-sanctioned event within the past 60 days, you will need to obtain a release form from that player’s prior club before s/he will be eligible to compete with your club. You may obtain a player release form either from your district’s registrar, or by contacting AAU at 407.934.7200.