All-Star The Thread To Stop The Hijacking Of The Cea Thread

[TheUltimateFan]

That is just the nature of the game. Good change will be slow and has to win over the mass majority. Some ideas are just before their time and need the chance to develop. Over-reacting is JUST as bad as under-reacting (remember how everyone felt when they change the small small coed scoresheets because of the correction?). You live and work in the rules that are laid out in front of you and understand sometimes change takes time.

As for why the rules should change in a good way to represent the majority of the athletes is that a majority of the coaches will come out and support certain rules. It is like electing a president. Talking/complaining/lauding a president or candidate doesn't get someone elected. It is when the rubber meets the road and someone goes through the process to actually cause change. Your gym and gym owner know how to propose and get rules out there to be voted on.

And, if you feel strongly enough that something is a problem feel free to email the pres and VP of the USASF: Jim Chadwick [email protected] Steve Peterson [email protected] .

Do you believe that the parties driving change today (and in the past) truly represent the interests of the majority of the athletes?

If it is USASF making the rules, and only a small percentage of the athletes in the sport belong to gyms who are USASF members, the gap is a reality. And the changes that will be proposed certainly won't be guaranteed to be founded in the interests of the majority unless that balance changes OR somehow USASF polls all coaches - members, board members or not. Once again, I refer back to this scenario at the USASF.net link in my signature as an example.

And then there is still the fact that EPs have no financial interest in adhering to USASF rules. The elephant in the room is still being ignored. When it comes right down to it, the only way change is going to happen - regardless of what USASF dictates - is when you hit the EPs in their pocketbook. Emailing someone at USASF is a positive action, but it won't drive a solution if that is the only action taken. What we keep asking for is an answer as to how to build a force strong enough to make the EPs change, or find an EP willing to take the first step in making the interests and wishes of their customers their priority. The financial rewards should and probably will follow.

It is an endless loop. ugh

 

[TheUltimateFan]

c'mon kingston, don't quit on me now. How do we do it? I'll be blunt....how do you put a boot in the fanny of the EPs? The answer is out there. We just need to hear from whoever has it figured out?

 

[ACEDAD]

c'mon kingston, don't quit on me now. How do we do it? I'll be blunt....how do you put a boot in the fanny of the EPs? The answer is out there. We just need to hear from whoever has it figured out?

He's coaching at UCA this weekend.

 

[TheUltimateFan]

He's coaching at UCA this weekend.

Hmmph, priorities. LOL.

;) Thanks.

 

[BlueCat]

Do you believe that the parties driving change today (and in the past) truly represent the interests of the majority of the athletes?

If it is USASF making the rules, and only a small percentage of the athletes in the sport belong to gyms who are USASF members, the gap is a reality. And the changes that will be proposed certainly won't be guaranteed to be founded in the interests of the majority unless that balance changes OR somehow USASF polls all coaches - members, board members or not. Once again, I refer back to this scenario at the USASF.net link in my signature as an example.

And then there is still the fact that EPs have no financial interest in adhering to USASF rules. The elephant in the room is still being ignored. When it comes right down to it, the only way change is going to happen - regardless of what USASF dictates - is when you hit the EPs in their pocketbook. Emailing someone at USASF is a positive action, but it won't drive a solution if that is the only action taken. What we keep asking for is an answer as to how to build a force strong enough to make the EPs change, or find an EP willing to take the first step in making the interests and wishes of their customers their priority. The financial rewards should and probably will follow.

It is an endless loop. ugh

Regarding who sits in the "power seats"
I believe that everyone in positions of "power" within the industry really does seek to do what is best for the industry in the long run. There may be differences in opinion on things, but generally, everyone wants the industry to thrive. I know that many people think there is a cabal or cartel there trying to figure out ways to screw the small gyms out of money and athletes, but that really isn't the case.

I'll let you in on a secret. The big gyms WANT the small gyms to be successful. They NEED the industry to grow and keep getting new young athletes exposed to all star. They need teams to compete against. Those gyms even need to get beat or lose athletes from time to time to push them to improve.

Think of the cheer industry as a huge shopping mall. Some gyms are like "anchor stores" (think Nordstroms or Macy's) and take up an entire section of the building. Some gyms are mid-sized like Abercrombie or Gap. Others are like the 1-man kiosks that line the hallways. Each have their own issues and challenges, but all of those together make the mall successful. Sure, everyone wants all of the customers walking around to come shop in their store. However, the LAST thing any store wants if for the other stores to go out of business. The whole mall goes down if there are only 1 or 2 big stores left open.

Regarding the pace of change within the USASF:
The "easiest", most obvious, least controversial things to fix have already been done for the most part. The "low hanging fruit" has already been picked. Things like crossovers, universal scoresheet, requiring paid membership, etc. will get fixed - it is just a matter of deciding exactly how to do it. Most agree that those things are broken, it is just a matter of coming up with the proper fix.

 

[tumbleyoda]

BlueCat - I just died laughing when I pictured the "cabal" and "cartel" debating which gym would survive and which would be swallowed up for the good of the industry, or if crop tops would be phased out for the good of the "family":D

I am kidding people!

 

[TheUltimateFan]

Regarding who sits in the "power seats"
I believe that everyone in positions of "power" within the industry really does seek to do what is best for the industry in the long run. There may be differences in opinion on things, but generally, everyone wants the industry to thrive. I know that many people think there is a cabal or cartel there trying to figure out ways to screw the small gyms out of money and athletes, but that really isn't the case.

I'll let you in on a secret. The big gyms WANT the small gyms to be successful. They NEED the industry to grow and keep getting new young athletes exposed to all star. They need teams to compete against. Those gyms even need to get beat or lose athletes from time to time to push them to improve.

Think of the cheer industry as a huge shopping mall. Some gyms are like "anchor stores" (think Nordstroms or Macy's) and take up an entire section of the building. Some gyms are mid-sized like Abercrombie or Gap. Others are like the 1-man kiosks that line the hallways. Each have their own issues and challenges, but all of those together make the mall successful. Sure, everyone wants all of the customers walking around to come shop in their store. However, the LAST thing any store wants if for the other stores to go out of business. The whole mall goes down if there are only 1 or 2 big stores left open.

Regarding the pace of change within the USASF:
The "easiest", most obvious, least controversial things to fix have already been done for the most part. The "low hanging fruit" has already been picked. Things like crossovers, universal scoresheet, requiring paid membership, etc. will get fixed - it is just a matter of deciding exactly how to do it. Most agree that those things are broken, it is just a matter of coming up with the proper fix.

Perfect explanation, and a great analogy. It is easy to see that those of you with large amounts of influence that speak here on the boards clearly have the best interests of the sport in mind. I have the utmost respect for people like you, Andre, Kingston and Courtney who engage with the stakeholders here. It's those large voices we don't hear that are the concern.

As far as the whole small gym vs. big gym debate I couldn't agree more. I've always wondered why the small gyms that can't field a competitive Level 5 team don't see that they have their own intrinsic value and that being a feeder to the large teams at the higher levels could be leveraged as a bonus to their business, not as a detriment. More one-on-one time with athletes, building techinically superior skills instead of mass-producing sloppy elite skills, engaging and cementing the love for the sport from a young age by making them understand and experience that the rewards go beyond just a trophy or a jacket.

But, that being said...for that to become the culture the rules have to be formed in a way to support the success of the small gyms as well. And the rules that are coming are coming too slow. We see it everywhere as the giants grow, expand and franchise and buy out cheer properties beyond just athletes. Power brokers. Intentionally or not, they gobble up the athlete base and the available revenue with no regard for the overall impact. I don't think anyone wants to see this reduced to a McDonalds vs Burger King vs Jack-In-The-Box of available cheer options. My concern is that the longer the delay, the heavier the balance of power in favor of the few (and I mean the giant EPs just as much - if not more - than I do the programs themselves), and the less likely the rules are going to be what is best for the majority of the programs and athletes instead of what is most profitable.

When I first read the meeting minutes on the athlete registration process, I was excited beyond words to see what evolved and how the process was so well-managed and managed by people who clearly cared about what was the best decision for all. And then it just died. That's where my concerns regarding the power-brokers and the influence they wield comes into play. Why did it die? How? There was no logical reason I could read into that record. So there had to have been some more insidious factor or factors that we are not privvy to. How can we encourage the progress?

 

[StarshipTrooper]

As far as the whole small gym vs. big gym debate I couldn't agree more. I've always wondered why the small gyms that can't field a competitive Level 5 team don't see that they have their own intrinsic value and that being a feeder to the large teams at the higher levels could be leveraged as a bonus to their business, not as a detriment. More one-on-one time with athletes, building techinically superior skills instead of mass-producing sloppy elite skills, engaging and cementing the love for the sport from a young age by making them understand and experience that the rewards go beyond just a trophy or a jacket.

That is an interesting concept. An owner/staff risks capital and 70 hours a week with the realization from the first that it will be quite difficult if not impossible to become a large gym, especially in a mature market like Dallas or Atlanta AND accepts the fact that they will be spending hours training athletes to move on to larger gyms. Would you do that? Ultimately, if you and your staff have the talent to coach and thrive at every level you are going to want to keep your very skilled athletes to build on while training the younger and new ones in house to stay in house. If not, I, as a parent would likely move my Suzi to the gym where I could develop relationships with the staff and parents of the gym that held the team of my ultimate goal. Now, geography and rules are going to play a role as transportation is getting very expensive, but ultimately the only way to compete with a big gym may be price of tuition, and that only goes so far unless you can provide them with a competitive team opportunity. Or, maybe the use of the dreaded crossover.;)

 

[TheUltimateFan]

That is an interesting concept. An owner/staff risks capital and 70 hours a week with the realization from the first that it will be quite difficult if not impossible to become a large gym, especially in a mature market like Dallas or Atlanta AND accepts the fact that they will be spending hours training athletes to move on to larger gyms. Would you do that? Ultimately, if you and your staff have the talent to coach and thrive at every level you are going to want to keep your very skilled athletes to build on while training the younger and new ones in house to stay in house. If not, I, as a parent would likely move my Suzi to the gym where I could develop relationships with the staff and parents of the gym that held the team of my ultimate goal. Now, geography and rules are going to play a role as transportation is getting very expensive, but ultimately the only way to compete with a big gym may be price of tuition, and that only goes so far unless you can provide them with a competitive team opportunity. Or, maybe the use of the dreaded crossover.;)

Why can't a small gym and large gym deliberately choose to align to the benefit of both without a legal or financial merger? Wouldn't it be possible for them to work together for the best interest of their customers and each other?

I've seen it happen...where a larger gym sent lower level athletes whose families couldn't afford the higher tuition and travel costs to a smaller gym where they could benefit from the lower cost and one-on-one attention. And in turn that same small gym sent back some Level 5 athletes that had acquired the skills that warranted a chance at being competitive at the higher levels, giving them a better chance at achieving their dream and at the same time helping the larger gym establish their reputation. Which then helps them attract other Level 5 talent and improve their financial success. It isn't impossible to achieve.

 

[tumbleyoda]

Why can't a small gym and large gym deliberately choose to align to the benefit of both without a legal or financial merger? Wouldn't it be possible for them to work together for the best interest of their customers and each other?

I've seen it happen...where a larger gym sent lower level athletes whose families couldn't afford the higher tuition and travel costs to a smaller gym where they could benefit from the lower cost and one-on-one attention. And in turn that same small gym sent back some Level 5 athletes that had acquired the skills that warranted a chance at being competitive at the higher levels, giving them a better chance at achieving their dream and at the same time helping the larger gym establish their reputation. Which then helps them attract other Level 5 talent and improve their financial success. It isn't impossible to achieve.

While a partnership could potentially be in the best interests of both unfortunatley IMO the "why can't I just have the whole pie" mentality will kick in at some point. In this scenario proposed what is to stop the larger gym from not just wanting the level 5's but the level 4's and 3's as well? Agreements can be broken and partnerships dissolved. Now the small gym does not have enough athletes to remain viable as a business. Then you become that gym that can only teach beginners but once they get skills they need to go to the large gym. Not a great prospect for many small gyms.

I have seen the exact example @Starship Trooper alluded to. Those younger lower level athlete whose parents felt rather than stay in the small gym and grow, then move once they were at a skill level that the small gym did not have (or was not in their opinion strong enough) - that it was better to move and get in the large gym system quicker. This way the coaches knew them and they were more likely to get a better position on future teams than just being a newbie walking in the door - even with a reccomendation. No fault of the small gym that lost them or the large gym that got them. Pure personal decision. But when that one athlete turns to 5 - 10 or more because they all have friends they want to make the move with them and cheer with them at the new gym, now the viability of the small gym as a business starts to suffer.

 

[TheUltimateFan]

While a partnership could potentially be in the best interests of both unfortunatley IMO the "why can't I just have the whole pie" mentality will kick in at some point. In this scenario proposed what is to stop the larger gym from not just wanting the level 5's but the level 4's and 3's as well? Agreements can be broken and partnerships dissolved. Now the small gym does not have enough athletes to remain viable as a business. Then you become that gym that can only teach beginners but once they get skills they need to go to the large gym. Not a great prospect for many small gyms.

I have seen the exact example @Starship Trooper alluded to. Those younger lower level athlete whose parents felt rather than stay in the small gym and grow, then move once they were at a skill level that the small gym did not have (or was not in their opinion strong enough) - that it was better to move and get in the large gym system quicker. This way the coaches knew them and they were more likely to get a better position on future teams than just being a newbie walking in the door - even with a reccomendation. No fault of the small gym that lost them or the large gym that got them. Pure personal decision. But when that one athlete turns to 5 - 10 or more because they all have friends they want to make the move with them and cheer with them at the new gym, now the viability of the small gym as a business starts to suffer.

Sad but true. So what other options exist for the smaller gym to survive? Sending a team called Level 5 to Worlds to place 50th out of 50 is not going to carry you for long in any market. There has to be a niche somewhere that can be effectively marketed. Unless someone figures out that answer I'm not sure how any of the proposed rule changes are going to make a difference one way or another in the survival of the small gyms.

None of those rule changes can fix the problem you stated above. Either you have the athletes to compete at the higher levels or you don't. Pushing them up and down levels by crossing over isn't going to put you on par with a higher level team fully loaded with athletes at true level. It may benefit a small gym at the lower levels, but the scenario you just stated negates the value of that.

 

[StarshipTrooper]

I'm sure there are many ways to look at it, but in the original illustration, I would never by happy at the kiosk, I would want to put my Neiman-Marcus besides Nordstroms. However, if I were Nordstroms, I would welcome H & M next door to pick up the 10% of shoppers that wanted that high priced brand name. That is why I like the candid nature of the original post. To compete in a mature market, you better have enough capital to build a better facility next door and hire the competitors staff or bring in a better one or you're going to fail. If I were a young person looking at the cheer gym business, I would stay away from the well established gyms and look for areas with the population and income to support the tuition and costs. The northern Virginia area is where I would go with all the money floating around DC and having to go through DC to get to the fine gyms in MD. But I have not done any research at all, just rambling a bit. BUT, in central NC with multiple gyms established in 1998 I would have cast the widest net I could cast with multiple satellite programs and work my tail off, and as I grew and began getting the kids up to the level where I could field teams that may be able to compete with the best, I would use the lure of crossovers (and a whole lot of kids come due to the fact they can cheer on one team. The much maligned Med Co-ed team is filled with kids that want a different role in a routine) to attract athletes and also use them on the margin to improve teams that were on the cusp of winning but needed a couple of more doubles. And if I were Nordstroms, I may not like Neiman-Marcus next door as much as H & M unless the shopper pool was too great to service. And then I would prefer expansion of the existing store.

 

[cupieqt]

At JamU this past summer Courtney explained how unorthodox their system is compared to how most other gyms do things. Utilizing cross overs is one way that they further kids skills quickly. She put it like this:
My children take spelling tests in first grade and every week they learn a new set of words. At the end of the year they WILL advance to the next level (2nd grade) whether they made 100% on every spelling test or not.

Basically what I gathered is that they will progress kids to the next level every year even if they aren't 100% at the next level. In order to get them to 100%, crossing over to other teams increases their reps and workouts. Much like having a tutor would increase the practice of those spelling words (and math problems and reading comprehension, etc).

It is not an idea that would work for me but I admire it a lot and I toy around with some of those ideas to make them fit our gym. It's a great idea and I love the theory behind it.

 

[BlueCat]

I'm sure there are many ways to look at it, but in the original illustration, I would never by happy at the kiosk, I would want to put my Neiman-Marcus besides Nordstroms. However, if I were Nordstroms, I would welcome H & M next door to pick up the 10% of shoppers that wanted that high priced brand name. That is why I like the candid nature of the original post. To compete in a mature market, you better have enough capital to build a better facility next door and hire the competitors staff or bring in a better one or you're going to fail. If I were a young person looking at the cheer gym business, I would stay away from the well established gyms and look for areas with the population and income to support the tuition and costs. The northern Virginia area is where I would go with all the money floating around DC and having to go through DC to get to the fine gyms in MD. But I have not done any research at all, just rambling a bit. BUT, in central NC with multiple gyms established in 1998 I would have cast the widest net I could cast with multiple satellite programs and work my tail off, and as I grew and began getting the kids up to the level where I could field teams that may be able to compete with the best, I would use the lure of crossovers (and a whole lot of kids come due to the fact they can cheer on one team. The much maligned Med Co-ed team is filled with kids that want a different role in a routine) to attract athletes and also use them on the margin to improve teams that were on the cusp of winning but needed a couple of more doubles. And if I were Nordstroms, I may not like Neiman-Marcus next door as much as H & M unless the shopper pool was too great to service. And then I would prefer expansion of the existing store.

Stretching the analogy even further..

The point I was trying to make was that building a Neimans or Nordstrom are not the only ways people can make a living in the retail business. Also, that Nordstroms main goal isn't trying to make Gap or Old Navy go out of business.

For that matter, you could be Wal-Mart, open stores all over the place, and make more money than Nordstrom and Neimans combined.

 

[TheUltimateFan]

....
When I first read the <USASF> meeting minutes on the athlete registration process, I was excited beyond words to see what evolved and how the process was so well-managed and managed by people who clearly cared about what was the best decision for all. And then it just died. That's where my concerns regarding the power-brokers and the influence they wield comes into play. Why did it die? How? There was no logical reason I could read into that record. So there had to have been some more insidious factor or factors that we are not privvy to. How can we encourage the progress?

This has been a great dialogue. Thank you to everyone who contributed and gave us a great learning experience and thoughts to ponder, based on your own observations and lessons learned. And thanks to everyone who took the time to read it and absorb what was said to all of us by those who live in this business environment every day. Maybe it can help us narrow the focus of these topics.

But I still have one question, and this is the 4th or 5th time I have asked this question. It has never been answered here. In regard to the quote above. What happened? Where and how can we contribute to the forward progress?