No, that'd be even weirder. That'd be a team of 10 five year olds, 10 7 year olds, and like a random distribution of 7-11 and 1-5 year olds. If a decent chunk of the team aged off mini 2 (meaning they're nine) the math is off.
Hmm that's interesting bc the ones I've seen "advertised" (so to speak) as being on the team who would be basing bc "they want to try it bc they think it'd be fun" already base. A majority of them have been basing for years- and regardless of age, many of them have been at CEA for 4-8 years/seasons at least bc they started when they were tiny age. Matter of fact, I found a hand me down t-shirt from the 2008-2009 season for Tiny's and there are at least 4 I know from that shirt on this team. And a mini elite (back when it was a true level 3 team) shirt from 2009-2010.
Five more (besides the 4 I just mentioned) have had solid level 3 skills- especially stunting and tumbling, for at least 2-3 years, if not more.
I know bc I have videos of them on ME back then.
At least 4 of the girls on the team have been on Junior Elite for at least 2 prior seasons, and at least half from the team pic I saw are from YE as well. So to say that they're mostly young and implying most of them aren't way above their level is incredibly misleading. The poster who said I was prob mistaken about how long some of them have been there and confusing them with kids who'd aged off of YE already is not accurate. If you count, 2008-2015 equals 7 years- not to mention this includes youth age kids, not former Minis.
I'm sorry but if you're not gonna be honest and acknowledge that many of those kids have been at that gym for 4 or more years and that it's not designed to be "stacked" is kind of disingenuous. Especially in a day and age when videos are everywhere. Also, to say it's bc so many aged off of Minis isn't entirely accurate either, since their "Mini 3" team the past couple of years has actually been a youth 3 team w/the exception of non-USASF sanctioned events (I.e.- their "X" evolution events) and have competed with kids over mini age at those events.
And to add to this discussion a bit more- anyone remember CSP's school/advancing levels analogy in her thread? Basically she said if your teams don't move up a level pretty much yearly you've failed them as a coach just like not passing to the next grade in school...AND that she didn't understand why kids at gyms, or more so gyms whose philosophy it is, to be "proud"of competing at the same level for years instead of advancing. She explained her strategy for having crossovers was in part to help facilitate their growth quicker.
So since half of this team has been there more than 4 years and most of them more, and they aren't at least competing a level higher, haven't you, by your own definition, "failed" them (her words not mine)? And are you proud to have kids who've been on level 5 teams now for several years and kids who've been at your gym for 7 or more years drop down to form a level 3 team?
Look just to be clear- I'm not hating on anyone, especially not kids. And if the gym's decided to take on a different approach/coaching philosophy, then it's certainly their prerogative and that's ok too! But if you're gonna put a team out there, promote them, give them constant exposure, etc and people happen to notice that it seems a bit "unbalanced", especially compared to your well known coaching philosophy (not to mention video proof) you can't get mad at them and then try to make up "reasons" and try to pass them off as legit "facts".
*sorry
@gofriars610 - I just used this as a jumping off post bc I'm on my phone posting and it was easier than going back a few pages.