All-Star Rule/rubric Changes Hindering Athletes Progression

[oncecoolcoachnowmom]

Perhaps I'm way off, but I think bids have been the main culprit in hindering progress the last few years. When we began AS seven years ago, generally if you were a beginner athlete to having a bwo you were level 1, a bhs you were level 2, a running tuck level 3, etc. I guess the thought process was you could get your running skills if you had the basic on level skill. Now with the Summit, it appears to be on level 1 the expectation is not only to have full level 1 skills, but to have mastered technique, have the strength and stamina to do full skills in Nov, have level 5 body positions, level 5 jumps, and level 5 performance skills. Anymore that means a kid could have to concentrate on level 1 skills for a couple of years just trying to get at Summit level 1 team competitive expectations. I watched a Sm. Sr. 2 Summit team (below) last year, they were awesome, their precision and stunting/tumbling technique were off the charts for that level along with their performance, but I couldn't help but wonder how many years a Sr. level athlete would have to work to be at that level. Mind you, they got 3rd place, but I'm assuming for a legality.

Yes. Granted some of these Level 1s are probably made up of those kids who have progressed in some others areas but just not tumbling.

But don't mistake it, some of these are definitely a hodgepodge of Level 1-3 kids. Maybe even some 4s.

 

[catlady]

Yes. Granted some of these Level 1s are probably made up of those kids who have progressed in some others areas but just not tumbling.

But don't mistake it, some of these are definitely a hodgepodge of Level 1-3 kids. Maybe even some 4s.

Agree. I used to be very passionate about defending older lower level kids, but the sad reality is most team sports, HS or club, solely through competitive nature have eliminated the opportunity for kids over 13 that aren't already proficient. When parents and athletes are discussing their frustration on how they aren't progressing fast enough in one breath and Summit bids in the next, I think it's imperative to show them the caliber these lower level teams are performing at. The debate of "correct level" and "sandbagging" become moot points, because the winners are the ones setting the level expectations for the next season. When you have parents telling their kids, "I'm not going to pay for you to be on the same level year 2, 3 or 4" I really feel for gym owners and coaches trying to stay competitive.

 

[piglet]

I watched a Sm. Sr. 2 Summit team (below) last year, they were awesome, their precision and stunting/tumbling technique were off the charts for that level along with their performance, but I couldn't help but wonder how many years a Sr. level athlete would have to work to be at that level. Mind you, they got 3rd place, but I'm assuming for a legality.

They’re a Sr4 this year so they’re definitely (and thankfully) not being held back for Summit. The coaches require full squad everything & majority of the team has been together for more than 3 years. I totally agree with what you’re saying about expectations—just wanted to clarify.

 

[Lablover]

Well, a way to potentially remedy the problem is to create “learning/building” teams. By that I mean a team that everyone (coaches, kids, and parents) understand is young, inexperienced, and just mastering the required skills. And the expectations are clear from the beginning of the season. This team isn’t chasing a bid, is staying local (mostly one day comps), and probably not winning their division.
The issue is not many parents want to pay for a learning team. Lots of kids might not feel great about being on one -even though in the long run it might really help their skills. And coaches/owners I’m sure don’t love putting a team on the mat knowing that they more than likely won’t be able to win.

 

[Adrirocks]

Well, a way to potentially remedy the problem is to create “learning/building” teams. By that I mean a team that everyone (coaches, kids, and parents) understand is young, inexperienced, and just mastering the required skills. And the expectations are clear from the beginning of the season. This team isn’t chasing a bid, is staying local (mostly one day comps), and probably not winning their division.
The issue is not many parents want to pay for a learning team. Lots of kids might not feel great about being on one -even though in the long run it might really help their skills. And coaches/owners I’m sure don’t love putting a team on the mat knowing that they more than likely won’t be able to win.

Isn't that what all star prep is like? I do agree with the concept a cheaper, less competitive option to give kids an opportunity to build their skills.

 

[Lablover]

Isn't that what all star prep is like? I do agree with the concept a cheaper, less competitive option to give kids an opportunity to build their skills.

Yes, prep fits the bill, but I don’t recall seeing prep teams higher than level 2. Can you do prep level 3 or 4?

 

[luv2cheer92]

Yes, prep fits the bill, but I don’t recall seeing prep teams higher than level 2. Can you do prep level 3 or 4?

It is up to level 3.

 

[alpaca]

Agree. I used to be very passionate about defending older lower level kids, but the sad reality is most team sports, HS or club, solely through competitive nature have eliminated the opportunity for kids over 13 that aren't already proficient. When parents and athletes are discussing their frustration on how they aren't progressing fast enough in one breath and Summit bids in the next, I think it's imperative to show them the caliber these lower level teams are performing at. The debate of "correct level" and "sandbagging" become moot points, because the winners are the ones setting the level expectations for the next season. When you have parents telling their kids, "I'm not going to pay for you to be on the same level year 2, 3 or 4" I really feel for gym owners and coaches trying to stay competitive.

The performances at Summit have absolutely set the bar. And I can see it reflected at this years comps. Every team has stepped up their game and the winning teams are stacking their roster with the oldest kids possible. It makes all the strategic sense in the world. Your older kids are far more likely to have perfected the skills. It is no longer 'looked down on' to be 14 turning 15 on a junior team.

I've seen his internal switch in mindset in my own CP. Last year she was disappointed that she didn't move up a level after try-outs. For other reasons, we switched gyms and in the process, switched to an environment where perfection before progression was the goal. So she remained on the same level as last year, and even anticipates and looks forward to being on that level next year. Why? The reality for her is that this year she didn't tumble. Her tumbling skills are not competition ready for her level. The team doesn't want her to put janky tumbling skills on the floor because they will get dinged in technique. She knows that if she was moved up a level, she would be in the same position. But if she stays on this level, she will have perfected her tumbling skills and will participate in all aspects of the routine. Maybe even take a leadership role.

 

[catlady]

The performances at Summit have absolutely set the bar. And I can see it reflected at this years comps. Every team has stepped up their game and the winning teams are stacking their roster with the oldest kids possible. It makes all the strategic sense in the world. Your older kids are far more likely to have perfected the skills. It is no longer 'looked down on' to be 14 turning 15 on a junior team.

I've seen his internal switch in mindset in my own CP. Last year she was disappointed that she didn't move up a level after try-outs. For other reasons, we switched gyms and in the process, switched to an environment where perfection before progression was the goal. So she remained on the same level as last year, and even anticipates and looks forward to being on that level next year. Why? The reality for her is that this year she didn't tumble. Her tumbling skills are not competition ready for her level. The team doesn't want her to put janky tumbling skills on the floor because they will get dinged in technique. She knows that if she was moved up a level, she would be in the same position. But if she stays on this level, she will have perfected her tumbling skills and will participate in all aspects of the routine. Maybe even take a leadership role.

I see that, as well. I'm truly at a loss as to what I feel a level 1 and 2 team should (best for athlete and sport) look like anymore. I would like to believe there is a happy medium between perfection and progression. Athletes, like students, are going to fall on a curve when it comes to strengths and weaknesses in differing areas. If there were a school that were to hold back every child until they accomplished A's in all areas of studies before moving them onto the next grade level, they would be altering progression at an alarming rate. My Magnet Sr. would still be in Kindergarten working on her penmanship. In the same line of thinking, I can't imagine a Sr. in HS having a health issue, struggling in one subject and being put back in Kindergarten until that one subject is back up to A status. I don't have the answer, but I would love to hear what people feel is the right combination for the kids and sport to thrive.

 

[123jump4!]

No Summit for level 1 & 2? Just let them learn, progress and have fun, still compete locally. The pressure would be less, and less money spent for parents. You make level 3 then you can start chasing bids. Mind you, then level 3 would be sandbagged to death with level 4 & 5 kids. :confused:

I posted before that CP is improving her tumbling on her level 2 prep team. She is, but unfortunately the coach has also turned really mean. He yells at them a lot, punishes, and expects total perfection. This is not what I expected for prep. Sigh. I'm getting sick of mean cheer coaches. This is not an elite level, she wants to have fun too.

In what other sports are non-elite teams taken super seriously, have mean coaches and travel all over spending tons of money? What's it like in gymnastics?

 

[alpaca]

In what other sports are non-elite teams taken super seriously, have mean coaches and travel all over spending tons of money?

LOL all of them. I have 2 kids in middle school. At least at this age, in my area, every sport that their friends play is super competitive, parents are fanatics and they travel widely. My 6th grader just told me that her friend from school had a field hockey tournament in FL this past weekend. That's a plane ride away. I had no idea that field hockey has gotten that big.

In terms of gymnastics........ programs around me require 16 hours a week of practice if you make a team. And that starts as young as 5 or 6. You are either on the team or you aren't. There is no in -between.

 

[oncecoolcoachnowmom]

High expectations of prep level kids is great.

However, I was under the impression that prep = decreased time commitment/money. We have some HS JV athletes on a local prep level 2 (to gain skills for Varsity) and they have a schedule that has more comps than the NOT prep teams do. Granted, they do not leave the state, and their comps are only one day, but they have a comp every weekend in Feb, whereas kids on the regular Senior 2 have 2 a month.

 

[123jump4!]

However, I was under the impression that prep = decreased time commitment/money.

I didn't say that we travel and spend a ton of money. We don't, luckily. Time commitment is 2 x 2 hrs plus extra practices when needed.

 

[oncecoolcoachnowmom]

On the topic of "everything competitive and no place for folks just trying it out."

I was just talking about this re: Youth Football Cheer in my area.

When I was cheering for youth football (way back in the day like late 80s/early 90s), the first couple of age brackets (like, the flag team age and the next level up 1st/2nd grade team) did not have a tryout. I remember this because I had never cheered before and my mom just signed me up and paid the week before practices started.

Fast forward to now, every level of Youth Football Cheer here has a tryout starting with the Kindergarten/Flag group who are 5-6 years old. And it's not a "we call it a tryout but everyone makes it" situation either. I judged it a few years back and there were several who did not make it. For Kindergarten. Many of the top scoring kids have solid Level 1 tumbling. Same is true all the way up to 5th grade. There is no space for a "never done this" kid to get started in sideline because if you're trying out for 5th, even the JV team girls have BHS.

They could go the all stars route and sure, all stars do not generally have a tryout (more of an evaluation/placement) but no one wants to make that commitment not knowing if it is something their child will like.

 

[Mndl]

LOL all of them. I have 2 kids in middle school. At least at this age, in my area, every sport that their friends play is super competitive, parents are fanatics and they travel widely. My 6th grader just told me that her friend from school had a field hockey tournament in FL this past weekend. That's a plane ride away. I had no idea that field hockey has gotten that big.

In terms of gymnastics........ programs around me require 16 hours a week of practice if you make a team. And that starts as young as 5 or 6. You are either on the team or you aren't. There is no in -between.

So true! Youth sports in general has gone nutty. In my town rec soccer is dying because everyone switches to travel now in 1st grade, which is just ridiculous. If you haven't started playing baseball or softball by 2nd grade just forget it. My 13yr old plays lacrosse and it's also starting to be taken over by travel teams too, though they've managed to keep the seasons slightly different for now.
As for gymnastics well, CP left gymnastics for cheer because she didn't want to practice 12 hrs a week when she was in 2nd grade and it would only have gone up in hours. It certainly isn't cheap either or warm and fuzzy with the coaches