All-Star National Championships Are Won At Tryouts

[notyourcheermom]

CP is doing level 3 again this year but now she is level 3 with specialty, everything 100 %, whereas beginning of last season she had ro bhs tuck, ro tuck, front punch. After last year when she felt pretty confident going into 3 and then struggled with specialty, she was not interested in moving forward this year at all. She came from a what everyone could have gym to the what everyone does have gym. We prefer the everyone is solid on team. I will tell you this, it makes for a lot happier team environment, especially when it holds true for everyone. Now, do I prefer paying for privates because tumbling is really just level tumbling? Not really. Pushing her to play catchup during season makes her miserable. We will do privates this year, her second year of 3, and see if she can have 4 specialty by tryouts next year. She does not like to not be able to do something her coach asks of her. She was on a level 3 that just won at Summit two weeks ago and a level 2 that won at Summit year before. These past two seasons have been pretty fantastic with true level kids on her team. Being pushed or challenged may work for some CPs, it makes mine try to go to the back of the line and go unnoticed.

 

[Mamarazzi]

It isn't so much about winning as much as the journey. Teams that are stacked have a way more enjoyable journey than teams that STRUGGLE to get to the end. A decent amount of struggle is always good ( read David and Goliath by Malcolm Gladwell on why failing and struggle is good to a child's success) but insurmountable odds or a situation that is setup for failure is bad. Read FAILURE is not bad, just a situation where all you can do is fail can be very hard. But a team that is setup for success will enjoy their entire journey and learn even if they do fail.

I'm gonna disagree with the wholeheartedly.
I was closely involved with a team that, at it's creation, was set up to just kind of be there. Wasn't stacked or sand-bagged or even leveled by majority in any way.
The athletes were properly coached and encouraged to gain skills, and never competed for "the win," they competed for a clean routine. That team, the parents and coaches had the most fun, loving and best time that season, and won rarely. Without a doubt.
So in the sense that it was for "the journey," yes. They loved that journey. But it wasn't because of the win. It was because they pushed beyond their personal limits and worked for team improvement.

 

[King]

I'm gonna disagree with the wholeheartedly.
I was closely involved with a team that, at it's creation, was set up to just kind of be there. Wasn't stacked or sand-bagged or even leveled by majority in any way.
The athletes were properly coached and encouraged to gain skills, and never competed for "the win," they competed for a clean routine. That team, the parents and coaches had the most fun, loving and best time that season, and won rarely. Without a doubt.
So in the sense that it was for "the journey," yes. They loved that journey. But it wasn't because of the win. It was because they pushed beyond their personal limits and worked for team improvement.

Winning and success arent the same thing.

 

[quitthedrama]

It is fine if it isn't all about banners and jackets but if a gym creates a team out of what they have and what they have isn not able to 'safely' compete and do the skills well that are in the level why not go a level down to something they can do extremely competently?


I think the smaller gyms that start to 'stack' their teams are the ones who start to make the transition to the big time. Stacking a team causes grumbling in the beginning but happiness in the end. Teams that 'reach' for a higher level cause happiness in the beginning but grumbling in the end (because they most likely did not perform as well in the level as they had dreamed of). And, to me, do you know when athletes are most likely to leave your gym? When they had a crappy year competing up a level when they shouldn't have. Smaller gyms would last longer and do better by not over extending their level.

Your argument speaks of something entirely different than stacking or sandbagging, particularly the bolded part. There is a BIG difference between putting skills on the mat that can not be competed safely or executed well and taking an entire team that has 90-95% level skills AT TRYOUTS and competing that team a level below the team skill set for that season. The latter is what I am seeing more and more teams do. If you have a team where 80% or higher can execute level 3 stunting and tumbling skills well at tryouts, and you compete level 2 all season, then your titles won't mean much to me, and as a customer, I am going to get tired of that pretty quickly. At the same time, I would be frustrated if a team was made up of 75% athletes with the skill set that meets the level that they will compete but the majority of that 75% can not execute the skills well. That is not smart team placement IMO. I think both of those scenarios are a poor reflection of the gym. You speak of competing up a level and down a level, but there are several gyms that compete their teams at the correct level.

On two separate occasions throughout their careers, my CPs were placed on teams that were made up of what I would consider minimum or just minimum skills to be competitive (certainly not winning but not losing either) for the level that they were competing at. The coaches saw the potential and believed in the kids and told them if they worked hard, they would be successful. Both of those teams struggled at the beginning of the season, but by mid-season they were winning every competition and often grand champs (and larger competitions such as Cheersport). Those wins mean far more to my CPs and I am more proud of those teams than almost any other team they have been a part of. There were jackets, banners, and skill progression for nearly every athlete on those teams. That to me, is the best combination you can possibly have.

 

[King]

Your argument speaks of something entirely different than stacking or sandbagging, particularly the bolded part. There is a BIG difference between putting skills on the mat that can not be competed safely or executed well and taking an entire team that has 90-95% level skills AT TRYOUTS and competing that team a level below the team skill set for that season. The latter is what I am seeing more and more teams do. If you have a team where 80% or higher can execute level 3 stunting and tumbling skills well at tryouts, and you compete level 2 all season, then your titles won't mean much to me, and as a customer, I am going to get tired of that pretty quickly. At the same time, I would be frustrated if a team was made up of 75% athletes with the skill set that meets the level that they will compete but the majority of that 75% can not execute the skills well. That is not smart team placement IMO. I think both of those scenarios are a poor reflection of the gym. You speak of competing up a level and down a level, but there are several gyms that compete their teams at the correct level.

On two separate occasions throughout their careers, my CPs were placed on teams that were made up of what I would consider minimum or just minimum skills to be competitive (certainly not winning but not losing either) for the level that they were competing at. The coaches saw the potential and believed in the kids and told them if they worked hard, they would be successful. Both of those teams struggled at the beginning of the season, but by mid-season they were winning every competition and often grand champs (and larger competitions such as Cheersport). Those wins mean far more to my CPs and I am more proud of those teams than almost any other team they have been a part of. There were jackets, banners, and skill progression for nearly every athlete on those teams. That to me, is the best combination you can possibly have.

Perhaps it is a matter of perspective. Teams that are competitive also tend to be the teams with the least amount of injuries for a level. Are the two that unrelated?

 

[quitthedrama]

Perhaps it is a matter of perspective. Teams that are competitive also tend to be the teams with the least amount of injuries for a level. Are the two that unrelated?

The two are related. However, I think you can have a competitive, level appropriate team that is coached well and has few injuries.

 

[King]

The two are related. However, I think you can have a competitive, level appropriate team that is coached well and has few injuries.

Isn't a competitive, level appropriate team a stacked team?

 

[Mamarazzi]

Winning and success arent the same thing.

True. But insurmountable odds sometimes bring out the best attributes in a team, i.e. not always bad.

 

[King]

True. But insurmountable odds sometimes bring out the best attributes in a team, i.e. not always bad.

Yes I will agree that bad situations can produce some good side benefits, but that doesn't mean unavoidable situation should be created.

 

[Mclovin]

There are levels of stacking, sandbagging, and being in too high of a level

Example for level 3
Most have layouts, standing bhs tuck but might be a little shakey on the standing tuck or don't have 2 to layout
To me that is sandbagging

Almost all have speciality to great technique tuck and good jump to 3, close to layout and maybe has standing bhs to tuck.
To me that's stacking

Everyone has standing 3, most have their tuck and about half can do a speciality to tuck
Level appropriate

Less than 75% having the standing and running skill
Should consider dropping down

We place at level appropriate with the goal of being between stacked and sandbagging by the end of the season.

We do fairly well, 3 of our 5 teams made it to the summit, but it we started with stacked teams maybe we would have made finals or top 3 or better

This!!! Completely agree.

 

[quitthedrama]

Isn't a competitive, level appropriate team a stacked team?

I think the term "stacked" is a matter of opinion. @CGAcheer gave excellent examples.

These two definitions of "stacked" come right from the dictionary.
"arranged dishonestly so as to gain an unfair advantage."
"to arrange or select unfairly in order to force a desired result, especially to load"

However, I think the term can also refer to a very good, competitive team where nearly every member has the skill set of the level they are competing on and execute those skills very well, but would struggle more at a higher level. I am ok with the latter, not with the former.

I think most can agree the term "sandbagging" is far more definable.

 

[oncecoolcoachnowmom]

This is a topic I struggle with from a coaching standpoint, especially when it comes to evaluations/tryouts and individual kids.

You have the opportunity to field a team of "all or 80% of the skills for a level" kids, then there are a few who are just not there yet. Ex: That kid in a large group of true L2s who just started throwing a BHS but has nothing else Level 2, but is IMMACULATE at Level 1 things.

I have gotten flack for NOT placing that athlete at Level 2 and having her remain on L1 for another season.

My theory is that it when the rest of a team is pretty close to true to the Level, it has the potential to harm that athlete rather than help her. She is going to be the one "chasing the skills" that everyone else has and being stressed over "Is my BHS good enough? Am I going to get pulled from the routine? Am I even going to throw it today?" Whereas another year on L1 while WORKING L2 skills in privates may benefit her more.

I suppose from that, you could surmise that if at all possible, I'd like for my kids to be pretty well-rounded and 80%ish of all level skills. However, if I have an "80% or close to all of L2 skills" team, we're competing at L2. Not 1.

 

[MissCongeniality]

On two separate occasions throughout their careers, my CPs were placed on teams that were made up of what I would consider minimum or just minimum skills to be competitive (certainly not winning but not losing either) for the level that they were competing at. The coaches saw the potential and believed in the kids and told them if they worked hard, they would be successful. Both of those teams struggled at the beginning of the season, but by mid-season they were winning every competition and often grand champs (and larger competitions such as Cheersport). Those wins mean far more to my CPs and I am more proud of those teams than almost any other team they have been a part of. There were jackets, banners, and skill progression for nearly every athlete on those teams. That to me, is the best combination you can possibly have.

This! Best feeling ever! It's so hard to find that perfect medium though. I mean it is great to stack a team and max out those score sheets from day 1. But honestly, a bit boring. You get to the point where it's like "yep, we're gonna win" and you can win while basically "dialing it in". But, on the flip side, there are those teams where, perhaps, too many are "reaching" for those skills. Not that they shouldn't be that level...but more something I would call a "growing year". Finding that sweet spot in the middle --- the "we could win if we do this all right"---but not "our skills are just so above everyone else that we could drop 3 stunts and still win" is a great place to be! It's a place where athletes can still grow in skills as individuals as well as a team, in my opinion.

 

[catlady]

I can't think of a sport where coaches say, "let's put together a mediocre team and hope they progress to the point we need them by playoffs." I actually think cheer has done a great job to make it as fair as possible for the small gym, as well as, the large gym. The issue I see in the gym from a large percentage of parents is they can't look beyond their child's individual skills to see the team or their competition. How often do we hear someone say, "If my child doesn't make team X, I'm not paying for another season?" or "I'm taking their phone until they throw their ____ so they'll be on team X." Yet, everyone can admit on the outside, the 6' back spot on an all girl lvl 3 team who doesn't tumble may be more valuable to a coach, than a 4'6" non-flying child with lvl 3 tumbling.

For the money I pay to these gyms I expect the gym owners and coaches to put together the best teams they can with the kids that tryout, within the safety and rule regulations, and to know their competition. If that now requires a level 3 team to be able to throw all level 3 skills prior to the beginning of the season, then I will accept the fact that my child that threw her first running tuck the day before tryouts with no punch front ability will probably not make the level 3 team. IMO that is not stacking or sandbagging, that is the reality that the bar always continues to rise whether we like it or not.

 

[King]

I can't think of a sport where coaches say, "let's put together a mediocre team and hope they progress to the point we need them by playoffs." I actually think cheer has done a great job to make it as fair as possible for the small gym, as well as, the large gym. The issue I see in the gym from a large percentage of parents is they can't look beyond their child's individual skills to see the team or their competition. How often do we hear someone say, "If my child doesn't make team X, I'm not paying for another season?" or "I'm taking their phone until they throw their ____ so they'll be on team X." Yet, everyone can admit on the outside, the 6' back spot on an all girl lvl 3 team who doesn't tumble may be more valuable to a coach, than a 4'6" non-flying child with lvl 3 tumbling.

For the money I pay to these gyms I expect the gym owners and coaches to put together the best teams they can with the kids that tryout, within the safety and rule regulations, and to know their competition. If that now requires a level 3 team to be able to throw all level 3 skills prior to the beginning of the season, then I will accept the fact that my child that threw her first running tuck the day before tryouts with no punch front ability will probably not make the level 3 team. IMO that is not stacking or sandbagging, that is the reality that the bar always continues to rise whether we like it or not.

What is considered average in a level nowadays just 4 years ago would have been considered sandbagging. I think people choose teams based on what they feel is acceptable socially.

There is also the general feeling if a gym took their level 4 athletes down to level 3 (or even 2) then they would definitely win. What if you need to stack your team just to compete. What if MULTIPLE gyms in a division are stacking (to the point some might say it is sandbagging). Isn't it just how things are done now?