All-Star National Championships Are Won At Tryouts

[cheercurl]

Stacking/competitive = when you only place athletes on your teams that have fully mastered the skills of that level
Sandbagging = when someone else only places athletes on their teams that have fully mastered the skills of that level

OOps wrong thread...

 

[cupieqt]

I try my very best every year to stack my teams. If you want to be competitive you have to. If you don't then you're setting your teams up to be middle of the pack at best. It's just the nature of the beast now.

Every year all star gets more and more competitive. Those that aren't adapting to the trends and the changes will quickly get left behind. I won't ever do anything that will compromise the core values of my program but you bet your bottom dollar I'll do my best to keep us current and relevant.


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Androidas

 

[cheercurl]

Or skip to the part where everyone does it and it gives you no competitive advantage.

Not everybody will be able to do it...so oh well sucks to be them? Actually this is what happens and it does suck to be them.

 

[King]

Not everybody will be able to do it...so oh well sucks to be them? Actually this is what happens and it does suck to be them.

Why can't everyone do it?

 

[cheermommaRN]

Outside of social stigma, what is wrong with people stacking (or sandbagging) teams?

In terms of stacking, there is nothing wrong with it if you have the talent pool to pull from. Coaches should try to make the most competitive teams possible.
Sandbagging is a completely different story (using the example of a senior 4 dropping to level 3 or 2). That is perpetuating the self entitlement idea of "I want that jacket now and I don't want to work for it". The spirit of youth sports is that our kids learn more than just a cartwheel. They learn teamwork, sportsmanship, conflict resolution...none of which they get if they are being taught that its okay to cheat. Sandbagging is the equivalent of Gabby Douglas showing up to AAU Nationals and sweeping everything.

 

[King]

Well I guess my whole point is: stacking a team with athletes that have mastered the skills of a level 2 is not the same as sandbagging which would be a level 3/4 team that competes level 2 to win. Sandbagging is mostly a "medium to large gym luxury"... It is much harder to do with a small gym who only has 3, 4, or 5 teams. I think if you have less than a 100 athletes you already have a conglomerate of teams with mixed abilities on it anyway. Small gyms won't be able to sandbag like a mega gym so once again mega gym comes out the champ in that scenario.

PS I guess anyone could sandbag a level 1 team but I know of small gyms that even that would difficult. #justsayin

So by my definition of sandbagging/stacking...My question to you is why would you want an entire team to compete down a level? Why would it be necessary to do to win if you had a team filled with athletes who had solid level skills?

What if my standards to be on my team are incredibly high. A team is only made if the entire repertoire of skills is absolutely so mastered everything is executed in perfect cursive? And my idea of growth and challenge is developing the upper level skills not during competition, but in your own time?

 

[King]

In terms of stacking, there is nothing wrong with it if you have the talent pool to pull from. Coaches should try to make the most competitive teams possible.
Sandbagging is a completely different story (using the example of a senior 4 dropping to level 3 or 2). That is perpetuating the self entitlement idea of "I want that jacket now and I don't want to work for it". The spirit of youth sports is that our kids learn more than just a cartwheel. They learn teamwork, sportsmanship, conflict resolution...none of which they get if they are being taught that its okay to cheat. Sandbagging is the equivalent of Gabby Douglas showing up to AAU Nationals and sweeping everything.

What if 5 gyms were 'sandbagging' and the only way to be competitive is for that 6th gym to sandbag? They could field a level 3 team and get slaughtered or field a level 2 and have a shot at winning?

 

[cheermommaRN]

Why can't everyone do it?

I feel like this thread is starting to talk in circles. Small gyms do not have the luxury of having the numbers coming in that warrant always making "stacked" teams. If you have less than 100 kids...a handful are solid level 2...a few tucks...a couple fulls. You have to make due with what you have. This year our gym has 3 teams (mini 1, jr 2, sr coed 3) all of them are small teams. Mini 1 and Jr 2 are pretty solid but that left the owner with 20 something kids that were to old for juniors and ranged from level 3 to level 5...so he did the best he could.

 

[King]

I feel like this thread is starting to talk in circles. Small gyms do not have the luxury of having the numbers coming in that warrant always making "stacked" teams. If you have less than 100 kids...a handful are solid level 2...a few tucks...a couple fulls. You have to make due with what you have. This year our gym has 3 teams (mini 1, jr 2, sr coed 3) all of them are small teams. Mini 1 and Jr 2 are pretty solid but that left the owner with 20 something kids that were to old for juniors and ranged from level 3 to level 5...so he did the best he could.

A technique I have seen and like is using cross compete athletes have the one lower level team that is stacked and competitive and have the upper level team that won't finish 'high' but allows the kids to throw their skills.

 

[cheermommaRN]

What if 5 gyms were 'sandbagging' and the only way to be competitive is for that 6th gym to sandbag? They could field a level 3 team and get slaughtered or field a level 2 and have a shot at winning?

This is not sandbagging. If your "level 3" kids are not performing with good technique and you only have a handful of kids with the skills then yes they should be level 2 and will probably do very well. But if you have a team (at tryouts) with full squad tucks, specialty passes, amazing flyers...and STILL chose to go level 2? Then I start to wonder.
To me sandbagging is when you have a team that has competed level 5 all season and then drops to junior 2 for NCA. Or competes level 4 75% of the season and then come January drops to level 2 for Nationals season.

 

[King]

This is not sandbagging. If your "level 3" kids are not performing with good technique and you only have a handful of kids with the skills then yes they should be level 2 and will probably do very well. But if you have a team (at tryouts) with full squad tucks, specialty passes, amazing flyers...and STILL chose to go level 2? Then I start to wonder.
To me sandbagging is when you have a team that has competed level 5 all season and then drops to junior 2 for NCA. Or competes level 4 75% of the season and then come January drops to level 2 for Nationals season.

That is probably a much better definition. Sandbagging is competing one level for a portion of the season and dropping down for certain competitions.

Stacking is choosing kids for a team at the very beginning of the season.

 

[cheercurl]

Why can't everyone do it?

A small gym is going to have a mixed bag of skills...yes in theory it is possible for anyone to do it but not likely for a small gym. Are you going to take three level 5 athletes two level 4 athletes and three level three athletes and put them on Sr 2 because the only team you could "sandbag" is Sr 2? Maybe you would? But the reality of a small gym is they are going to do everything they can to hold onto to their "more elite" athletes.

As a parent am I going to invest in a gym who puts my true level 5 athlete on a sr 2 team? What to do...what to do? Sandbag to have winning teams? Or keep my level 5 athletes from walking to another gym by putting together a mixed bag level 4 team or a janky level 5 team in the hopes that those Lv 5 athletes hold on for another year? Knowing that this is probably not going to be an easy year for them? There are any number of scenarios but I am sure you get the point...Is this making sense? LOL

It's a huge dilemma... and not at all the same as a large gym who has an abundance of skilled athletes to divide into kick booty teams.

 

[King]

A small gym is going to have a mixed bag of skills...yes in theory it is possible for anyone to do it but not likely for a small gym. Are you going to take three level 5 athletes two level 4 athletes and three level three athletes and put them on Sr 2 because the only team you could "sandbag" is Sr 2? In your world I guess you would? LOL But the reality of a small gym is they are going to do everything they can to hold onto to their "more elite" athletes.

As a parent am I going to invest in a gym who puts my true level 5 athlete on a sr 2 team? What to do...what to do? Sandbag to have winning teams? Or keep my level 5 athletes from walking to another gym by putting together a mixed bag level 4 team in the hopes that those Lv 5 athletes hold on for another year? Knowing that this is probably not going to be an easy year for them?

It's a huge dilemma... and not at all the same as a large gym who has an abundance of skilled athletes to divide into kick booty teams.

The earning potential for a gym is a lot higher for the younger and lower level. When athletes reach a higher level of skill they take less classes and are harder to hold onto. The Tiny 1 kid is worth more than the Senior with a standing double.

However the suggested idea of creating teams with cross compete kids where one is a stacked team that can win and the other is a team that allows kids to experience a higher level would work.

 

[cheercurl]

The earning potential for a gym is a lot higher for the younger and lower level. When athletes reach a higher level of skill they take less classes and are harder to hold onto. The Tiny 1 kid is worth more than the Senior with a standing double.

However the suggested idea of creating teams with cross compete kids where one is a stacked team that can win and the other is a team that allows kids to experience a higher level would work.

The earning potential for a gym is a lot higher for the younger and lower level. When athletes reach a higher level of skill they take less classes and are harder to hold onto. The Tiny 1 kid is worth more than the Senior with a standing double.

However the suggested idea of creating teams with cross compete kids where one is a stacked team that can win and the other is a team that allows kids to experience a higher level would work.

I totally agree that younger and lower levels have a higher earning potential! Ultimately they pay your bills! Small gyms in their quest for that level 5 "World's Team" often lose sight of that. Watering down all your teams to compete at higher levels will lead to unhappiness across the board.

 

[cheercurl]

I feel like this thread is starting to talk in circles. Small gyms do not have the luxury of having the numbers coming in that warrant always making "stacked" teams. If you have less than 100 kids...a handful are solid level 2...a few tucks...a couple fulls. You have to make due with what you have. This year our gym has 3 teams (mini 1, jr 2, sr coed 3) all of them are small teams. Mini 1 and Jr 2 are pretty solid but that left the owner with 20 something kids that were to old for juniors and ranged from level 3 to level 5...so he did the best he could.

You are right it is going in circles because it is more complicated than just saying "Everybody Sandbag" problem solved! :cheering: I have never been at anything other than a small gym(s). I watch every year in fascination as they pull together teams, sometimes successfully...sometimes an epic fail.