All-Star Proposed Age Changes For Next Season From Doral.

[Cray_Z_CheerMom]

The way I'm reading it, there would be the regular Jr for strictly ages 11-14 and then an open Jr 14 and under so athletes younger than 14 could still be put on a team with like skilled athletes of all ages up to 14....

 

[retiredl5cheer]

The way I'm reading it, there would be the regular Jr for strictly ages 11-14 and then an open Jr 14 and under so athletes younger than 14 could still be put on a team with like skilled athletes of all ages up to 14....

I think you're correct.

Hmm. That makes even less sense. Why add more divisions that are going to do the same thing that they're trying to stop?

 

[RaRaMama]

I don't pretend to know the answers, but I feel like this is going to really hurt smaller gyms. Not to mention, tell those 12 year olds that just earned Worlds medals that they don't belong on a senior level team.

As far as 10 year olds on senior teams, I can't speak for level 5, but my CP is on a 4.2 and there are several younger kids on there. Judging from the practice last night, they have just as much body control and strength/stability as some of the older girls. If you are looking at it from the perspective of a 10 year old shouldn't be with an 18 year old, I can understand that mentality....but that's where good coaching and supervision come in.

 

[Deleted member 382]

I think you're correct.

Hmm. That makes even less sense. Why add more divisions that are going to do the same thing that they're trying to stop?

I don't like the idea of an open junior division for this exact reason. This has the potential to add a lot of additional divisions. What if the ranges were expanded a little that the majority of the ages fit into 2 age groups:

Tiny 4-6
Mini 5-9
Youth 7-11
Junior 10-14
Senior 12-18

Personally though, I am not sure what the bottom ages on the tiny, mini, and youth team really buy you. Is the intent that these divisions need a bottom age for consistancy? I am sure there is a difference in maturaty between a 6 year old and an 11 year old, but if a coach wants to group a 6 year old and an 11 year old on a team together what is the concern?

 

[BamaCheerGuy]

The only thing different is the level 5 and Tiny division. It just means anyone to age 6 can be on tiny. The lower number is not the "anything younger can't cheer", that just defines the division. A 6 yr old could still cheer junior!


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

 

[retiredl5cheer]

The only thing different is the level 5 and Tiny division. It just means anyone to age 6 can be on tiny. The lower number is not the "anything younger can't cheer", that just defines the division. A 6 yr old could still cheer junior!


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

Where are you seeing this? Forgive me, but I translated the lowest age in each division to be the "anyone younger than this can't cheer in this division" age. According to the way I read it, a 6 year old CAN'T be on a junior team.

 

[newcheerdad]

While I think you should always strive to keep kids on age-appropriate teams, that should be a function of the coaches in the program and not enforced by rule. Otherwise that really talented kid that can "play up" won't be allowed to and you'll risk losing them to another gym. You also take the flexibility away for teams to "compete up" (i.e., compete in sr or jr in a competition where there's no competition in their age level).

I didn't really have a big problem with the age grid as it was. If this is really instituting a floor for certain age groups, it's fixing something that isn't broken.

 

[dawgshow]

The only thing different is the level 5 and Tiny division. It just means anyone to age 6 can be on tiny. The lower number is not the "anything younger can't cheer", that just defines the division. A 6 yr old could still cheer junior!


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

Then why wouldn't it read "and under" instead of a set range?

 

[BamaCheerGuy]

I may be reading this wrong. I just took it as a "jr" level would be defined as 12-14. Personally, I love the idea of cutoff ages being moved up a year for all levels. 6,9,12,15,18. That's another story. IF the change is for a strict cutoff for all levels. IT will never pass. There are maybe 4 gyms in the whole U.S. that could fulfill this range. We just passed a new rule for the definition of a gym. ACE has over 1200 kids spread across several gyms. Do you honestly think to make a youth 3 team kids are gonna travel from Birmingham to Atlanta? You would have to have 600 plus kids at one location. Then you have to hope that all the kids hit the right birthday and level. If this is a cutoff date, it will never pass. The industry would fold. Until I see it in detail, I am gonna say they are proposing 6-8 is youth. Like we do now. You can't have a cutoff at all levels, only Sr.5 and Tiny. The industry is much smarter than this.

 

[Deleted member 15]

Why add more divisions that are going to do the same thing that they're trying to stop?

My understanding is this was proposed to the USASF, not by the USASF.

 

[DaniV]

I absolutely hate this. Had we known a month ago, maybe I would feel differently but we already have all of our teams created and if this went into effect, we'd have to restructure alot. I have quite a few 6 and 7 year olds on my Youth 3 and I don't think bumping them down to a mini 1 would be very appropriate. Also, we'd have to kick two kids out because two isn't enough for a tiny team. I really really hope this doesn't pass for my own selfish reasons...

Maybe going forwards in the future this could be a beneficial thing but for us small gyms, it would be a hugeeeee shake-up to how we place our teams and would require us to either cut kids based purely on their age or create a whole bunch of very small teams. We just don't have the numbers to offer every age division in multiple levels.

 

[BamaCheerGuy]

I absolutely hate this. Had we known a month ago, maybe I would feel differently but we already have all of our teams created and if this went into effect, we'd have to restructure alot. I have quite a few 6 and 7 year olds on my Youth 3 and I don't think bumping them down to a mini 1 would be very appropriate. Also, we'd have to kick two kids out because two isn't enough for a tiny team. I really really hope this doesn't pass for my own selfish reasons...

Maybe going forwards in the future this could be a beneficial thing but for us small gyms, it would be a hugeeeee shake-up to how we place our teams and would require us to either cut kids based purely on their age or create a whole bunch of very small teams. We just don't have the numbers to offer every age division in multiple levels.

It won't. It would kill the industry. Not just small gyms. Nobody could really have a true level appropriate team. Maybe 3 gyms and they couldn't luck up and have all age groups.

 

[THEJOEL]

I like this better:
Tiny
4-6
Mini
6-8
Youth
11&under
Junior
14&under
Sr 12-18

 

[gofriars610]

I wish there was a way to petition an exceptional young athlete (i.e. someone Laney or Kiara-esque) onto a worlds team before they turn 12. Something similar exists in Canada's major junior hockey league.

 

[Valvalmom]

I agree in theory, but its not at all practical. For small gyms, it would mean you were automatically placed on a team based on age alone and not ability. We have 2 youth age girls on senior restricted 5. Under these guidelines and being a small gym, it would place them on a team where the majority of kids are levels 1-2.