All-Star Sandbagging

[Official OWECheer]

Curse you for finding this thread before me.


**please raise your hand if you're related to Jocelyn**

Just leave it aloooooooone! No more doggin' threads around. HEEEEEEEEEEE HEEEE HEEE!

 

[Cheerhastakenovermylife]

What is the difference between sand bagging & stacking? Is it only an issue with large gyms? What about small gyms with only two teams? I'm still learning & would love some insight.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[SL&AM]

What is the difference between sand bagging & stacking? Is it only an issue with large gyms? What about small gyms with only two teams? I'm still learning & would love some insight.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Sandbagging and stacking mean the same thing.

I don't think it's a large gym only issue, but they often get the most blame.

 

[MissCongeniality]

Sandbagging and stacking mean the same thing.

I don't think it's a large gym only issue, but they often get the most blame.

I disagree. To me sandbagging is making the conscientious decision to drop your team to a lower level in the name of the win. Stacking is different to me. It is putting your strongest athletes on a team. Athletes who at Gym B might get put on a higher level team ...but at Gym A they're not. Big gyms with a deep deep talent pool can definitely stack their teams with talent rich athletes at every level. However if they then take that amazing stacked team of talented athletes and compete them down a level (or two or three) at a comp so they can pretty much guarantee they get that coveted jacket...that's where stacking just became sandbagging.

 

[Beans100]

I disagree. To me sandbagging is making the conscientious decision to drop your team to a lower level in the name of the win. Stacking is different to me. It is putting your strongest athletes on a team. Athletes who at Gym B might get put on a higher level team ...but at Gym A they're not. Big gyms with a deep deep talent pool can definitely stack their teams with talent rich athletes at every level. However if they then take that amazing stacked team of talented athletes and compete them down a level (or two or three) at a comp so they can pretty much guarantee they get that coveted jacket...that's where stacking just became sandbagging.

Yep, I agree. This is how I see it

Gym A (small senior, no level 5 team, stacking)
has a level 4 team where all athletes have layouts, 1/2 have combo passes, 4 girls have fulls, 2 are working doubles

Gym B (small senior, no level 5, sandbagging)
has a level 4 team where all athletes have layouts, 14 of the athletes have fulls, 2 have standing fulls, 5 girls have doubles

At gym A, there are technically some girls who should be level 5, but as a whole, there is not enough level 5 talent to build a team. At gym B, there are majority of athletes who should be level 5 but the gym refuses to go level 5 because winning would not be guaranteed. I don't think it's uncommon to see a lower level team, especially from a small gym, that has some stellar talent. But, when you have a level 3 team and half of that team crosses to a level 5 where they are able to tumble and stunt at that level, I start shaking my head.

 

[FlexyTumblerMom]

Yep, I agree. This is how I see it

Gym A (small senior, no level 5 team, stacking)
has a level 4 team where all athletes have layouts, 1/2 have combo passes, 4 girls have fulls, 2 are working doubles

Gym B (small senior, no level 5, sandbagging)
has a level 4 team where all athletes have layouts, 14 of the athletes have fulls, 2 have standing fulls, 5 girls have doubles

At gym A, there are technically some girls who should be level 5, but as a whole, there is not enough level 5 talent to build a team. At gym B, there are majority of athletes who should be level 5 but the gym refuses to go level 5 because winning would not be guaranteed. I don't think it's uncommon to see a lower level team, especially from a small gym, that has some stellar talent. But, when you have a level 3 team and half of that team crosses to a level 5 where they are able to tumble and stunt at that level, I start shaking my head.

I think in a true stacking situation, gym A's team would instead be Level 3. A level 4 team in that case is actually a true level team and not really a stacked team. To me a stacked team is one where the team could actually be successful at the next higher level, not just meet minimum requirements.

There needs to be a word for when gyms compete the Gym A team as level 5 even though they won't be competitive in order to be able to boast/claim that they have a L5 team (when they really don't) - that's "a thing" too .

 

[SL&AM]

I disagree. To me sandbagging is making the conscientious decision to drop your team to a lower level in the name of the win. Stacking is different to me. It is putting your strongest athletes on a team. Athletes who at Gym B might get put on a higher level team ...but at Gym A they're not. Big gyms with a deep deep talent pool can definitely stack their teams with talent rich athletes at every level. However if they then take that amazing stacked team of talented athletes and compete them down a level (or two or three) at a comp so they can pretty much guarantee they get that coveted jacket...that's where stacking just became sandbagging.

I can definitely appreciate the diversity of these definitions.

 

[purplecheer]

Yep, I agree. This is how I see it

Gym A (small senior, no level 5 team, stacking)
has a level 4 team where all athletes have layouts, 1/2 have combo passes, 4 girls have fulls, 2 are working doubles

Gym B (small senior, no level 5, sandbagging)
has a level 4 team where all athletes have layouts, 14 of the athletes have fulls, 2 have standing fulls, 5 girls have doubles

At gym A, there are technically some girls who should be level 5, but as a whole, there is not enough level 5 talent to build a team. At gym B, there are majority of athletes who should be level 5 but the gym refuses to go level 5 because winning would not be guaranteed. I don't think it's uncommon to see a lower level team, especially from a small gym, that has some stellar talent. But, when you have a level 3 team and half of that team crosses to a level 5 where they are able to tumble and stunt at that level, I start shaking my head.

I would say that the last one depends on the gym. If you have a massive gym, you can have a full team of fulls. If you have a small gym, then you can't. I wouldn't call it sandbagging as they can compete level 5, but would not max out.

 

[MissCongeniality]

I think in a true stacking situation, gym A's team would instead be Level 3. A level 4 team in that case is actually a true level team and not really a stacked team. To me a stacked team is one where the team could actually be successful at the next higher level, not just meet minimum requirements.

There needs to be a word for when gyms compete the Gym A team as level 5 even though they won't be competitive in order to be able to boast/claim that they have a L5 team (when they really don't) - that's "a thing" too .

It definitely is a thing! And don't forget 10x National Champions blaring on the website (conveniently not mentioning that those "Nationals" were won as the only team competing in the division)

 

[fullpass]

With NCA this week I think we are going to hear a lot more about this. Especially since so many sketchy programs now create teams especially to compete in Dallas. Having a bunch of level 4 and 5 kids cross down to a level 1 all season so you can enter them at NCA is still sandbagging in my opinion. Not to mention a huge waste of time. If my kids were asked to do that my answer would definitely be no. Any black jacket won under those circumstances just wouldn't be the same.

 

[Cheerhastakenovermylife]

If you have a new small gym with a level 3 that has 4-5 with running fulls two of which have standing fulls, 4 that don't have running tucks or jumps to Springs and more that fall in the level 3 maybe low 4 category do you still consider it stacking? Also most of those 4 that aren't technically level 3 athletes because they don't have the tumbling crossover to level 1 is that stacking? Do you expect these small gyms that have 4-5 athletes at each level just run small one stunt group teams? As long as a team isn't performing skills above the level they are competing at why does it have to be viewed as unethical? I agree, taking a higher level team & competing them lower for a specific comp (sandbagging) seems unethical.

 

[Mndl]

If you have a new small gym with a level 3 that has 4-5 with running fulls two of which have standing fulls, 4 that don't have running tucks or jumps to Springs and more that fall in the level 3 maybe low 4 category do you still consider it stacking? Also most of those 4 that aren't technically level 3 athletes because they don't have the tumbling crossover to level 1 is that stacking? Do you expect these small gyms that have 4-5 athletes at each level just run small one stunt group teams? As long as a team isn't performing skills above the level they are competing at why does it have to be viewed as unethical? I agree, taking a higher level team & competing them lower for a specific comp (sandbagging) seems unethical.

I don't think that's really what bothers people. In a small gym you might end up with a wide range of skills on a level 3 team. I know our Sr3 team has a couple girls that can do fulls, but also a few that can't do tucks. I don't consider that stacking, the majority of the athletes are level 3. The issue is more when all the atheletes could be level 4/5 and instead are competing level 3.

 

[Cheerhastakenovermylife]

I don't think that's really what bothers people. In a small gym you might end up with a wide range of skills on a level 3 team. I know our Sr3 teams has a couple girls that can do fulls, but also a few that can't do tucks. I don't consider that stacking, the majority of the athletes are level 3. The issue is more when all the atheletes could be level 4/5 and instead are competing level 3.

Ok. Thanks. I was thinking maybe but some people seem pretty adamant (not necessarily in this thread) that a level 5 athlete shouldn't compete below a level 4. Which is not always possible. I know they looked at trying to have a R5 or 4 exhibition team but there weren't enough athletes to have two full stunt groups & the stunts they did do never hit.
We actually have a junior & a youth athletes that each obtained fulls recently but I don't see them being on a level 5 team for a long time. Both of which started less than two years ago with nothing more than a cartwheel. They are always on that tumble track & their parents are always fighting to get them to leave the gym every night.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[tumbleyoda]

I disagree. To me sandbagging is making the conscientious decision to drop your team to a lower level in the name of the win. Stacking is different to me. It is putting your strongest athletes on a team. Athletes who at Gym B might get put on a higher level team ...but at Gym A they're not. Big gyms with a deep deep talent pool can definitely stack their teams with talent rich athletes at every level. However if they then take that amazing stacked team of talented athletes and compete them down a level (or two or three) at a comp so they can pretty much guarantee they get that coveted jacket...that's where stacking just became sandbagging.

^^^I like this description. It is not that small gyms can not stack their talent. It is that small gyms tend to lose athletes when they do to larger programs or a bigger brand name that will offer that level 2 athlete a position on a level 3 or 4 team just because they have a so so ROBHSTuck only when the sun is shining and the birds are singing.

IMO sandbagging is when you have a team - say level 4 - that has competed most of the year as a level 4 and then drops to level 2 for a competition. It could be for a major competition like CheerSport, NCA, UCA, One Up. Or it can be a local competition just to beat another local gym and draw kids out of a competitors gym to your gym. Then that same team moves back up to level 4. That is a classic case of sandbagging. I have seen both scenarios play out many times in different locations.

A team that starts out the year as a level 4 but as the year went on just could not attain or compete the skills necessary to stay level 4, or the lost athletes to injury or recruiting from other gyms that drops to level 3, is not sandbagging. If they drop to level 2, that then raises the sandbagging question.

We have to remember that just because an athlete can tumble level 5, does not make them a level 5 athlete in every area of ta competitive routine. With the way the scoresheet now, the gym that puts an athlete that is not fully rounded in every area is going to take a hit on the scoresheet. Hiding that athlete is becoming harder and harder, as it should. You should never assume athletes are going to learn certain skills by a certain time because the truth is they don't always do it. That is not always the coaches fault, or the sign of a bad gym so you need to change gyms. Sometimes it takes all of us a but longer to learn some things and master them than it does others.

 

[Official OWECheer]

"Stick around after Worlds, headed to the Summit! Turn that Level 5 into a 3, yeah we up and done it."