All-Star S/o Release Discussion Re: Worlds Athletes

[yojaehs]

Let's compare this to the situation at Penn State. I'm not aware of any rules allowing the players to go to another FBS school and compete right away. I think we can all safely say that it's a tragedy and how were they supposed to know, etc.

They can leave and go to an FCS or lower team and play next fall or they can transfer an sit out a year.

Tough situation, but those are the rules.

Well put, tough to put in perspective but this definitely proves that some situations are just simply out of your control and just suck.
Xp

 

[BlueCat]

If you look at nearly every rule in the book, there is some conceivable scenario where it may negatively affect someone in a way that may be construed as unfair. The rules are made because (hopefully) that the rule will have a net positive effect on the industry, not that every single athlete, parent, gym owner, or event producer will ALL benefit and benefit equally. Not everyone agrees with every rule - for that matter not every gym owner agrees with this particular rule.

Also, this is a team sport, not an individual shopping at Wal Mart. Being part of a successful elite team means that sometimes, what is best for the team comes ahead of what is best for each individual. I am not aware of any highly competitive team sport that allows its athletes to simply switch teams if they feel like it mid-season. There are different processes involved (some more strict, some less so), but the concept of athletes having absolute right to hop from team to team as they see fit simply doesn't appear in elite-level organized team sports.

Another thing, this is not a new rule. It was in place last year.

 

[ztaprincess]

Another thing, this is not a new rule. It was in place last year.

People had issues with it last year as well because the way the rule is written right now the athlete can go to another gym and help a team win a bid while waiting on a release and then their previous gym decides that they don't want to release the athlete. This happened a few times last year. You an blame the second gym for allowing the athlete to compete without being released, but then that athlete probably didn't think that their previous gym wouldn't release them. I actually think that in one of these instances the first gym waited until less then a month before worlds to decide NOT to release the athlete. This gym had already replaced the athlete on the team they left a long time ago and got a bid but decided that even though the athlete had been competeing and practicing with another team for most of the year they still weren't releasing them.

This is why if they aren't going to make an appeals process for this they at least need to add to the rule that an athlete cannot compete or practice with another team until being released.

I wanted to add that I also hope that the gyms who just want to hold an athlete because they can do not pull in other athletes from gyms who released them.

 

[King]

The ones on the "better" level 5 team would stay. And probably lower levels because they still see the "good" athletes practicing and the "better" 5 team doing well, which would probably draw more athletes later on.

So your view is that good gyms with winning level 5 teams can do whatever they want and athletes will come to their program?

 

[King]

If its no big deal than get rid of it.

I love the claim "its just Worlds" as if Worlds means nothing to the kids this rule applies to :(

It was a simple question

Cleared up earlier It's just Worlds means it is the ONLY competition this affects. It is a big deal to gyms for one competition for one level and age of kids... there for it is the only one that applied to. The 'What do you mean' was directed at someone else.

Again It's JUST Worlds means: Worlds is the only competition that this affects.

People can complain about this rule but it will not go anywhere. The EP's have no reason to care about it because it does not affect them (a waiver does not matter to who can compete at their competition). The Gym's in general have no reason to not like this rule. In fact it is probably the larger gyms that are hurt by this more than the smaller. (if a smaller worlds team's promises of glory look low mid season now those athletes can't just jump midship). So you aren't going to get Gyms or EP's to try and repeal this. Parents could make a case to the USASF, but they are there for the gyms as much as the athletes and the amount of turmoil this rule ended is well worth the chance that one or two athletes are negatively affected by it (as any rule will negatively affect one or two people regardless).

 

[Mamarazzi]

Disagree with #2 maybe an athlete is getting moved from all girl to coed or from lg to small. The gym may have several reasons. Ex: a flyer on lg senior can't stay in the air, gym decides to switch her with a flyer from coed and give her a male back (idk jus hypothetical) family gets angry and decides to go to neighboring gym, this hurts the gum as they r now short a person on coed. Not saying it's right or wrong but o could understand why a gym wouldn't release them

But in that case, the athlete didnt get "kicked off the team/out of the program." The athlete quit.

 

[nlow]

Disagree with #2 maybe an athlete is getting moved from all girl to coed or from lg to small. The gym may have several reasons. Ex: a flyer on lg senior can't stay in the air, gym decides to switch her with a flyer from coed and give her a male back (idk jus hypothetical) family gets angry and decides to go to neighboring gym, this hurts the gum as they r now short a person on coed. Not saying it's right or wrong but o could understand why a gym wouldn't release them

Being moved to another team in the gym is one thing but being totally kicked off of a team (and being put on any team) is a big difference. So now athlete is not on a team and will not be released, now that sucks. Like I said before if the rule limits the athlete and parent (who is the paying customer, by the way) from switching gyms then it should limit the gym owners from replacing the athlete on a whim for someone "better". again JMO

 

[Just-a-Mom]

kingston here is my question. I (and many others) keep saying that the rule itself is great. All it needs to be perfect is an appeals process (a good, thought out, viable appeals process, not just "Oh, if you don't like the gym owner's decision you can ALWAYS appeal"). But nothing you've said argues against the appeals process. You still just keep pointing out why the rule is good. Pretty much just "It's a rule." And no response as to why the rule can stay, but be improved. We're asking why the rule can't be improved, not why the rule is OK. I think most people see why the rule exists, we just don't understand why it can't be rewritten in a way to be fair to all involved - you know, so the people writing the checks actually have SOME chance.

I was on the phone with Mamarazzi and I told her I feel like this is the conversation we are having:

Me: I want to paint my sunroom yellow.
You: But it's red.
Me: Yes. But I don't really like the red, so I'm thinking of yellow - you know...still a sunroom, but yellow.
You: But it's red now.
Me: Yes, but if I go buy some yellow paint, I can paint the room and it'll be just right. It'll still be a sunroom, just a yellow one.
You: But it's red.

What's wrong with adding an appeals process - such as the one we've suggested, where the "loser" has to pay the administrative fees so that there is no extra cost associated for the USASF to bear?

 

[nlow]

Being moved to another team in the gym is one thing but being totally kicked off of a team (and being put on any team) is a big difference.

oops (and not being put on any team)

 

[REA Dad]

Let's compare this to the situation at Penn State. I'm not aware of any rules allowing the players to go to another FBS school and compete right away. I think we can all safely say that it's a tragedy and how were they supposed to know, etc.

They can leave and go to an FCS or lower team and play next fall or they can transfer an sit out a year.

Tough situation, but those are the rules.

Tough to compare an FBS school to all star cheerleading because of the scholarships and their worth. But the unlike the current USASF rule there is an appeal process for NCAA athletes.

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/wash/genrel/auto_pdf/Transfer-Appeal-Policy-06.pdf

 

[BlueCat]

What's wrong with adding an appeals process - such as the one we've suggested, where the "loser" has to pay the administrative fees so that there is no extra cost associated for the USASF to bear?

It is a cost/benefit issue dealing with a limited amount of time and resources. As it is, a (relatively) black and white rule already consumes time and energy. Making that rule have grey areas and an appeals process means adding a committee, written procedures, paperwork, conference call times, etc. is not an effective use of the already resource-strapped USASF, IMO. An organization like the NCAA has the time, energy, staff, and resources to pull something like that off, the USASF does not.

We can debate whether the idea of a formal appeals process is a good one in theory all day long. The bottom line for me - that same amount of time, energy, and effort spent on other things would yield a higher net return for the industry. This may be worth looking into one day, but IMO, it is pretty far down the priority list given how few athletes this has an adverse impact on.

 

[REA Dad]

If you look at nearly every rule in the book, there is some conceivable scenario where it may negatively affect someone in a way that may be construed as unfair. The rules are made because (hopefully) that the rule will have a net positive effect on the industry, not that every single athlete, parent, gym owner, or event producer will ALL benefit and benefit equally. Not everyone agrees with every rule - for that matter not every gym owner agrees with this particular rule.

I understand why rules are put in place but there is also a mechanism for rules to be changed and this one should add an appeals process. As I've stated before all appeals become public, the loser (for lack of a better term) of the appeal foots the bill and maybe the appeals committee could be comprised of owners, coaches and parents for a fair representation.

Also, this is a team sport, not an individual shopping at Wal Mart. Being part of a successful elite team means that sometimes, what is best for the team comes ahead of what is best for each individual. I am not aware of any highly competitive team sport that allows its athletes to simply switch teams if they feel like it mid-season. There are different processes involved (some more strict, some less so), but the concept of athletes having absolute right to hop from team to team as they see fit simply doesn't appear in elite-level organized team sports.

You are 100% correct in saying that team sports and shopping at Wal Mart are not comparable. I was using a simplistic example to show Kingston that a gym owner is actually a paid service provider who should not have the final say if my child should be allowed to compete at Worlds. As for someone leaving mid season for no reason the appeals process would deny that transfer just as it would hopefully grant one for my abusive coach scenario. For the record I believe that my modified transfer rule should apply to all levels not just competing at Worlds.

I think that we all can agree that there are a plethora of rules that still need to be adjusted or added and discussion from all sides helps everyone involved see there are different agendas from each group.

 

[nlow]

hate to quote a cliche but absolute power corrupts absolutely, the buck should not stop with the gym owner.

 

[King]

kingston here is my question. I (and many others) keep saying that the rule itself is great. All it needs to be perfect is an appeals process (a good, thought out, viable appeals process, not just "Oh, if you don't like the gym owner's decision you can ALWAYS appeal"). But nothing you've said argues against the appeals process. You still just keep pointing out why the rule is good. Pretty much just "It's a rule." And no response as to why the rule can stay, but be improved. We're asking why the rule can't be improved, not why the rule is OK. I think most people see why the rule exists, we just don't understand why it can't be rewritten in a way to be fair to all involved - you know, so the people writing the checks actually have SOME chance.

I was on the phone with Mamarazzi and I told her I feel like this is the conversation we are having:

Me: I want to paint my sunroom yellow.
You: But it's red.
Me: Yes. But I don't really like the red, so I'm thinking of yellow - you know...still a sunroom, but yellow.
You: But it's red now.
Me: Yes, but if I go buy some yellow paint, I can paint the room and it'll be just right. It'll still be a sunroom, just a yellow one.
You: But it's red.

What's wrong with adding an appeals process - such as the one we've suggested, where the "loser" has to pay the administrative fees so that there is no extra cost associated for the USASF to bear?

Bluecat beat me to it. Its that an appeal process isn't practical or cost effective. I skipped the step of saying that on a strictly an ideological level, you are right. An appeal process would be great! But I keep answering from a pragmatic standpoint... one that takes and tells you how likely or possible the idea is. It's just not possible right now.

 

[King]

hate to quote a cliche but absolute power corrupts absolutely, the buck should not stop with the gym owner.

The gym owner doesn't have absolute power, the parents do. Never go to a gym and that gym won't exist.