Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
<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.
Also - I would love to see more than a year or two go by without another new experiment in rearranging/adding/subtracting divisions.
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.
Why do you think they keep changing?
(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.)
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!)
Was I in that vicinity?
Haven't the recent age grid changes, past 5 years or so, been proposed and voted on by coaches?
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.
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.
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.