All-Star Standard Team Size: 24

[BlueCat]

Shoehorning every team into a size 24 would not be a positive move for the industry. That would do much more harm than good to gyms of every size.

 

[Deleted member 15]

Shoehorning every team into a size 24 would not be a positive move for the industry. That would do much more harm than good to gyms of every size.

Please continue

 

[BlueCat]

<will try to keep argument brief>

The economics of running a team at 24 vs. 30 or 36 are dramatically different. Floor space, coaching slots, scheduling, cost of music/choreography, etc. are all hugely affected by cutting team sizes 20-33%. You would have to charge much more per athlete to have the same net result for the business. This means higher costs and/or less revenue for the gyms. This is true whether you have 2 teams or 40. That is bad for any gym of any size.

(There is a point above which team size becomes a safety issue that outweighs any economic benefit - that falls around 36 IMO.)

EPs would face similar issues from having many more teams for the same amount of entry fee. You would have to extend the schedule, more judges, etc. Competition fees would need to go up to offset the costs.

I fear this falls under the "if the mega-gyms don't like it, then it must benefit the small gyms somehow" mentality. Reminder: this is not a zero-sum game. Something can be bad (or good) for every type of gym at the same time.

 

[BlueCat]

Also - I would love to see more than a year or two go by without another new experiment in rearranging/adding/subtracting divisions.

 

[Deleted member 15]

<will try to keep argument brief>

The economics of running a team at 24 vs. 30 or 36 are dramatically different. Floor space, coaching slots, scheduling, cost of music/choreography, etc. are all hugely affected by cutting team sizes 20-33%. You would have to charge much more per athlete to have the same net result for the business. This means higher costs and/or less revenue for the gyms. This is true whether you have 2 teams or 40. That is bad for any gym of any size.

(There is a point above which team size becomes a safety issue that outweighs any economic benefit - that falls around 36 IMO.)

EPs would face similar issues from having many more teams for the same amount of entry fee. You would have to extend the schedule, more judges, etc. Competition fees would need to go up to offset the costs.

I fear this falls under the "if the mega-gyms don't like it, then it must benefit the small gyms somehow" mentality. Reminder: this is not a zero-sum game. Something can be bad (or good) for every type of gym at the same time.

Thank you.

You left off teams of 20 going to 24 (or 19 going to 23 for those of you that attend Jammy events and realized that really helps your ratios). I believe more teams will be put in a position to to add up to 20% than reduce 20%.

The year I first officially proposed this the average size of a team attending NCA ASN was 23.2 or 23.8, so on average these teams wouldn't feel the impact of the things you noted. These gyms could have the same total number of kids on the same number of teams. NCA could have the same number of performances, judges, etc.

Mega gyms probably would feel a negative impact if this were to come to fruition, but they became mega gyms due in part to being able to adapt to change so I don't think it would be something that would cause sleepless nights in the long term.

Of course, I've been wrong before.

 

[Deleted member 15]

Also - I would love to see more than a year or two go by without another new experiment in rearranging/adding/subtracting divisions.

Why do you think they keep changing?

 

[BlueCat]

Mega gyms probably would feel a negative impact if this were to come to fruition, but they became mega gyms due in part to being able to adapt to change so I don't think it would be something that would cause sleepless nights in the long term.

Of course, I've been wrong before.

They also became mega-gyms in large part by being able to make good decisions based on real-world experience in all-star gyms. Many of them have spent their entire professional lives in front of teams in gyms of all sizes - whereas some event producers and those working for conglomerates spend their days in office buildings.

(I apologize - anything in the remote vicinity of "what would you know - you work at a big gym" sets me off much more than it should.)

I have been wrong before as well.

 

[BlueCat]

Why do you think they keep changing?

Personal opinion - I think the USASF has a case of "when you are a hammer, every problem starts looking like a nail." (Athletes moving from Gym A to Gym B? Let's change some divisions!)

 

[Deleted member 15]

(I apologize - anything in the remote vicinity of "what would you know - you work at a big gym" sets me off much more than it should.)

Was I in that vicinity?

 

[Deleted member 15]

Personal opinion - I think the USASF has a case of "when you are a hammer, every problem starts looking like a nail." (Athletes moving from Gym A to Gym B? Let's change some divisions!)

Haven't the recent age grid changes, past 5 years or so, been proposed and voted on by coaches?

 

[BlueCat]

Was I in that vicinity?

Re-reading it - probably not. I have heard it so many times that I start assuming it is there when it may not be. My apologies.

 

[BlueCat]

Haven't the recent age grid changes, past 5 years or so, been proposed and voted on by coaches?

For the most part. By "the USASF" I mean the whole thing and the whole process (including NACCC)

For what it is worth, the rules committee is, by comparison, the most effective & efficient group in the bunch and tends to get things right when given the opportunity. Also, I do not for a second question your (or Les') intentions.

 

[BlueCat]

Thank you.

You left off teams of 20 going to 24 (or 19 going to 23 for those of you that attend Jammy events and realized that really helps your ratios). I believe more teams will be put in a position to to add up to 20% than reduce 20%.

The year I first officially proposed this the average size of a team attending NCA ASN was 23.2 or 23.8, so on average these teams wouldn't feel the impact of the things you noted. These gyms could have the same total number of kids on the same number of teams. NCA could have the same number of performances, judges, etc.

I would be curious to see the current team size distribution. Knowing the average isn't really enough to fairly judge the impact of shoving small and large into a single division. Are there a bunch of 36s and a bunch of 12s? My guess is that is harder for a team with 12 new athletes to add enough athletes to feel competitive than it would be for World Cup to move 12 Shooting Stars to another team. Again, without seeing the data it is hard to come up with a conclusion.

A separate point - are we concerned with continuing to develop a fan base to help attract new athletes to the sport? Fair or not, the larger teams tend to attract many more spectators and attention. I would be hesitant to ignore the relationship between team size and crowd size.

 

[Deleted member 15]

Re-reading it - probably not. I have heard it so many times that I start assuming it is there when it may not be. My apologies.

No apology needed. I had to re-read it myself to make sure it came out as I pictured it.

The best scenario is one that causes no pain or discomfort to anyone. The next best is discomfort for those that can handle it. I think 24 falls in that range and the mega gyms have shown they can handle the most.

 

[Deleted member 15]

For the most part. By "the USASF" I mean the whole thing and the whole process (including NACCC)

For what it is worth, the rules committee is, by comparison, the most effective & efficient group in the bunch and tends to get things right when given the opportunity. Also, I do not for a second question your (or Les') intentions.

I think things keep changing because we don't have it right yet and instead of thinking about what we would do if we started with a blank slate, we're trying to adjust the legacy we have one step at a time.

Thank you. I'm still new to the committee and hoping we get better and are eventually not necessary.