OK, using your logic can you provide evidence that what you are doing is more profitable and beneficial than what anyone has proposed? Or is it all based off what you 'feel' is better?
I'll copy and paste what I said on a facebook thread about the subject
ok so after a quick rearrangement, and I'm sure there could be slightly different variations that may or may not be slightly better this is what the bottom ages would do to my gym this year.
I currently will most likely have 5 teams a J1(20), Y2(18), LS2(28), S3(18), S4(17) with essentially(a few exceptions) squad skill except for 5 15 year olds who don't have a bhs are on the LS2
following the proposed bottom ages, I would most likely have 6 teams- Y1(11), J1(13), y2(19), J2(20), s3(20), s4(16) and having kicked out 5 kids who were between 5 and 7 years old.
this also put 5 kids without a bhs on a Sr 3 team that only has 2 flyers or I could pull up some of the older j2's to make 1 or 2 more
this also puts some layouts and toe backs on a j2 in addition to a few on the Y2
So in conclusion with just my gym, I lose over $500 a month in revenue (possibly only $200 as I may have to tell the 5 year old and the 2 six year olds to wait for our prep teams) and it would add a team which takes 4 more hours of floor space and coaches time a week in addition to choreo, music etc. So lets say conservatively I could put a tumbling class in that time making $60 an hour. Thats nearly $1000 a month + $500+ $2000 in choreo, $600 in music.
This age grid change just cost me a potential $20,000 for the year on top of having a wider range of skill levels on the teams and potentially losing the level 4 kids who would end up on a level 2 team and the kids who won't get to tumble at all in their routine because they were forced up to a skill level that they were not even close to ready for.
So how is this good for the industry??
if you really want bottom caps, nothing is stopping your gym from self imposing bottom ages