All-Star Team Size Within A Division

[12stepCheermom]

Im interested in your opinion. I've always been under the impression if you're in a small vs large division, you want to max out your team size to stay competitive. The underlying thought process is that smaller teams can't compete with larger teams, even within their own division....let alone when small and large teams get combined by EPs. However, I did see a small team least year with only 5 kids, win the mini 1 division (twice) against multiple teams with 20 kids.

So is it an inherent disadvantage to put a "small team" on the floor with 8-9 kids or a "large" team with 22-23? What are your thoughts?

 

[welcomeback]

For the most part. It is easier to max most categories with less kids.

With 5 girls you have more time for elements as you are limited with Choreo. And score really high if you have 4 of 5 doing max range skills. Pyramid would just be extremely difficult.

Id love a team of 15. I think its the perfect size to be able to max out etc

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

 

[mollymags]

this isn't your question, but EPs don't combine divisions. USASF says they can split them once there are 2 small teams and 2 large teams.

to address the actual question now... i see smaller teams beat out bigger teams all the time. from the scoresheets i've worked with, you're judged on the maximum number of skills that can be done with the number of kids you have on the floor. if you have a team of 8 putting up 2 stunts that hit every difficulty element on the scoresheet, it should score the same as a team of 20 putting up 5 stunts that hit every difficulty element on the scoresheet.

i think in the objective areas of the scoresheet, there's no disadvantage at all... i almost want to say that you're at an advantage- it's a lot easier to train and clean 3 stunt groups than it is to train and clean 8 groups.

but, with less kids, you have less to work with for flashy choreography and it's much harder to hide or fake skills if you have a few kids that don't have all the level skills. it could hurt you in the subjective areas of the scoresheet... but that's what a good choreographer is for ;)

 

[garretttt]

Don't you get scored on ratios though? or is that just high school. Like if you are a small team with 12 people, you would max out if you had 3 elite stunts/baskets.

 

[Senior5Allie]

For the most part. It is easier to max most categories with less kids.

With 5 girls you have more time for elements as you are limited with Choreo. And score really high if you have 4 of 5 doing max range skills. Pyramid would just be extremely difficult.

Id love a team of 15. I think its the perfect size to be able to max out etc

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

I had a team of 15. It was good but i feel it was a lot harder to make it visual. Fun to get creative with though.

 

[CheerBank]

My cp's first year, she was on a Jr prep level 2 which started with 14 girls and wound up with 11 by the time competition season rolled around. They finished 4th out of 7th at their first comp and then took 1st at every single comp the rest of the season except for Final Destination where they finished 2nd out of 22 teams.

 

[CheerBank]

this isn't your question, but EPs don't combine divisions. USASF says they can split them once there are 2 small teams and 2 large teams.

Last year at our All-Levels comp, they did not split the Sr 3 Coed division despite having at least 2 teams in both small and large (I think there were 8 in total in the whole division with definitely 3 small). Cp's small team came in 2nd to a large team, and although we technically had the top Small Sr 3 coed score, were not entered in the virtual comp because we did not come in 1st. Seemed rather unfair.

 

[BlueCat]

It is my belief that scoring systems, in and of themselves, theoretically benefit smaller teams. You are rewarded points proportionally, but points are deducted absolutely.

example:
A: team of 17 drops 1 of their 5 stunts. (20% of stunts drop)
B: team of 36 drops 2 of their 11 stunts (18% of stunts drop)

If they do the same stunts performed the same way, they both get the same start value because of the "ratio" concept. Team B, with 2 falls, gets more points deducted from their score than Team A. As a result, Team A has a much higher net score from stunts, despite having a statistically inferior stunt performance. (Team B hit a higher percentage of their stunts, but gets penalized more than Team A.)

Most people have the impression that larger teams benefit from the score sheets, though. Why is this? - the logical fallacy that correlation implies causation.

Most of the time, experience tells us that larger teams tend to outscore smaller teams. We see many competitions and it looks like large teams typically end up with higher scores. If you see this often enough, it is easy to assume that more people on the floor causes the scores to go higher. This is not necessarily true, however.

More experienced gyms tend to have maxed-out teams for economic reasons. (Not just to make more money per se, but to maximize resources like floor space, coaching, prime times in the schedule, etc. You could argue that they can keep the tuition lower by being more efficient.)

More experienced gyms also tend to have stronger teams, on average, than newer, less experienced gyms. There are always exceptions, but generally, older & larger programs tend have teams that outscore newer, smaller gyms for multiple reasons.

I feel that the "upward pressure" on scores from being an experienced gym tend to outweigh the "downward pressure" on scores from biases in the scoring system. In other words, DESPITE the fact that the scoring system favors smaller teams, larger teams tend to end up with higher scores because of other factors.

NOTE: This is also a vast oversimplification of my "theory" that is simply opinion and based solely on anecdotal evidence. I also work with a larger, older program so my viewpoint is not objective.

 

[mollymags]

Last year at our All-Levels comp, they did not split the Sr 3 Coed division despite having at least 2 teams in both small and large (I think there were 8 in total in the whole division with definitely 3 small). Cp's small team came in 2nd to a large team, and although we technically had the top Small Sr 3 coed score, were not entered in the virtual comp because we did not come in 1st. Seemed rather unfair.

I took this from the age grid:


"SMALL/LARGE SPLITS
Event producers will split the division into “Small” and “Large” divisions when there are at least two teams that will ultimately be registered in each respective division. The designation of “Small” and “Large” divisions must follow the team sizes below:
Small = 5 – 20 members
Large = 21 – 32 members (36 members for Level 5)"


Sounds like that division should have been split. But, I might be missing a rule somewhere that allowed them to do that.

 

[CoachTamara]

I feel like you cannot compare a team of 14 to a team of 26 fairly. In my experience, judges have the human aspect and see movement and excitement and more going on and score accordingly. Last year we had a small junior 3, and by luck were the only small team at nationals. Every team had 10 or more girls than us. We hit both days, and got creamed by teams that had 4 or 5 drops. For our number, we did everything we could. At every competition last year we finished first or second, but when you put small vs large, it just seems like the routines are totally different (esp when it's very small vs. very large). Some scoresheets reward you taking advantage of the numbers, but some don't. It's easy to see crazy pyramids and think "well that outscores their boring 3 group pyramid" but it's not always fair. I loved having a small team, but it hurt a couple of times and was very hard to explain to parents that it was simply luck of the draw and we wouldn't return to that competition and those judges.

 

[CheerBank]

I took this from the age grid:


"SMALL/LARGE SPLITS
Event producers will split the division into “Small” and “Large” divisions when there are at least two teams that will ultimately be registered in each respective division. The designation of “Small” and “Large” divisions must follow the team sizes below:
Small = 5 – 20 members
Large = 21 – 32 members (36 members for Level 5)"


Sounds like that division should have been split. But, I might be missing a rule somewhere that allowed them to do that.

We thought so too but complaints were made but nothing came from them.

 

[Fightz]

I think that there are both benefits and downfalls to having a smaller or larger team, but they end up balancing out. Personally, larger teams usually are more interesting to watch for me because I am impressed when they are well synchronized and clean and can do more (more stunts in the air, more elements in a pyramid), but other then that, I do not know the actual details behind scoring and judging small vs. large teams... I did help coach a Sm.Jr.2 that only had 13 girls and I never really felt like we were at a disadvantage when they competed against teams with 20 girls. They actually had a pretty successful season :)

 

[Senior5Allie]

I feel like you cannot compare a team of 14 to a team of 26 fairly. In my experience, judges have the human aspect and see movement and excitement and more going on and score accordingly. Last year we had a small junior 3, and by luck were the only small team at nationals. Every team had 10 or more girls than us. We hit both days, and got creamed by teams that had 4 or 5 drops. For our number, we did everything we could. At every competition last year we finished first or second, but when you put small vs large, it just seems like the routines are totally different (esp when it's very small vs. very large). Some scoresheets reward you taking advantage of the numbers, but some don't. It's easy to see crazy pyramids and think "well that outscores their boring 3 group pyramid" but it's not always fair. I loved having a small team, but it hurt a couple of times and was very hard to explain to parents that it was simply luck of the draw and we wouldn't return to that competition and those judges.

that is exactly what went on with my small junior 3

 

[Morgankay88]

I never minded having smaller teams... as long as I could choreograph a good pyramid. Trying to do pyramids with only 10 people especially with the younger ages is tough. It really takes some creativity.

That being said it can be done. I have had some small teams that have done really well in their divisions. I had a youth 2 team that won nationals with only 11 people, and a senior 3 teams that won with only 14. But I have also gone to competitions where the larger teams had multiple touch downs on tumbling but they were in the back and they didn't recieve any deductions... and our scores were extremely close. So if the correct deductions had been given we would have won.

So I would say it depends a lot on the judges unfortunately.

 

[crazycheermom]

Don't most of the EPs have some sort of clause about splitting/combining on their discretion basically to ensure competitiveness? This was a complaint of mine last year because our gym ended up in a division where we were small team and competed against large team AND coed team. Sure it can happen where that small team beats the others, but realistically when we are also a small gym, it makes it tough.