All-Star Top 3 Means, Top 3 For Everyone

[flipmac]

Why should one country be allowed to show more talent, just because they have more talent?

This topic is in lew of all the comments regarding the international division and the amount of teams that move onto finals​

How else could this be done?

IMO!
--Just adding more teams to be allowed through will not work, it will be top 5 next year, top 10 year after, with no end in sight.
--Top Percentage doesn't work either, that will become an ever increasing numbers game as well.
--Being country specific doesn't seem fair either

 

[ACEDAD]

What are you trying to accomplish here and what does your second sentence mean? "Lewd" means "lust, lechery or lasciviousness."

 

[flipmac]

in lew of...

just after peoples opinion... its a heated topic and many view points on how to handle this booming division...

 

[Audrey]

--Top Percentage doesn't work either, that will become an ever increasing numbers game as well.

Don't they let the top half into finals for the club divisions? Why would it not work to let the top half of each country in the international divisions go to finals?

 

[j3r4h]

I think the Top 3 thing is just fair. . .coming from the International [literally] point of view.
No offense, but i think the division was created to
1. cater athletes who can't compete due to age limit
2. allow cheerleading worlds/allstar cheer to venture all over the world. I mean it's cheerleading "WORLDS" right?

Non US countries can also cheer and are challenged to "soon" keep up with US Cheer. . . if you add more teams to qualify for the Finals - that would surely favor the US teams . . .i know there are a lot of reli excellent teams from the US but u also have to consider that coming to Worlds would cost some countries a fortune . . . it's reli expensive. So i think it would only be fair for some countries to have a fair fight with the US teams to qualify for the Finals. And just to be in the finals would totally pay off all the expenses, hardwork and effort . . .even just that. . . even JUST qualifying for Finals would change the lives of the Non US athletes. . .

 

[BubbleToes]

In lieu of....

 

[flipmac]

Don't they let the top half into finals for the club divisions? Why would it not work to let the top half of each country in the international divisions go to finals?

it would not work because the us would enter 50 teams and allow 25 in... compared to the countries entering 2-3, 5 at most, and only two or one going through. it would just murder the international teams and they would no longer come to worlds.

 

[ztaprincess]

it would not work because the us would enter 50 teams and allow 25 in... compared to the countries entering 2-3, 5 at most, and only two or one going through. it would just murder the international teams and they would no longer come to worlds.

Those International teams have just as much of an advantage to make it into the top as those US teams. They all have the same chance of winning it is about who is better. If those US teams are better how is that their fault?

The International teams have to work to get where the US teams are, just like the US teams had to work to get where they are. Catering to them isn't going to help them catch up in this sport.

I think it should be a percentage to the country that is there or top 10 from each division. It isn't fair for a US team that scored way higher then the International team going into finals in 4th to be sitting in the stands.

 

[King]

I am curious what the original mission of the division was. While allowing a high place finish for international teams it allows adults 18 and over to still compete.

How about this:

Create an open divisions that is JUST 18+ (level 5 and 6) and the top half goes to finals based on score. (more accurately portray what I think open should be)

And as well have the international division, no age changes, but the Host country of Worlds cannot enter.

What do you think?

 

[King]

Why I really love this idea the more I think about it: the reason international is in such contention and for discussion is it is filling two roles. Allow the older people to compete WHILE allowing international teams who have different age requirements to have a place. It is like combining small senior and large senior at a comp. Serves a purpose but doesn't make much sense. This would allow the international teams to compete and not stop them from having the exact same divisions they have always had, same rules too. The US would have divisions setup that would be what Open should be with ages that they should be.

What would be the bad thing about this?

 

[CrownedtheGR8est]

Just trying to play devil's advocate here..


What if instead of an "international division" it was simply made an open division at worlds so that the older international teams could compete and would not have to be forced down to 3 teams simply because we DO out number the amount of teams that other countries are bringing. My justification for this, and not to offend, is that even teams that don't make it to finals under the current rules still would/could/usually do outrank most International team's (from other countries) in the end.

And perhaps.. and I know that most of us are against worlds expanding.. however under this it probably wouldn't...

Each country would only have ONE spot to compete for in the INTL division. Meaning that division at worlds is only represented by a single team from each country. But isn't this what the ICU is? Anyway within each country there could be one or even several competitions to determine the victor and the representative.

Perhaps the answer isn't percentages or exact numbers.. maybe its adding a whole new division all together?

 

[King]

Just trying to play devil's advocate here..


What if instead of an "international division" it was simply made an open division at worlds so that the older international teams could compete and would not have to be forced down to 3 teams simply because we DO out number the amount of teams that other countries are bringing. My justification for this, and not to offend, is that even teams that don't make it to finals under the current rules still would/could/usually do outrank most International team's (from other countries) in the end.

And perhaps.. and I know that most of us are against worlds expanding.. however under this it probably wouldn't...

Each country would only have ONE spot to compete for in the INTL division. Meaning that division at worlds is only represented by a single team from each country. But isn't this what the ICU is? Anyway within each country there could be one or even several competitions to determine the victor and the representative.

Perhaps the answer isn't percentages or exact numbers.. maybe its adding a whole new division all together?

I tried your answer, no one liked it. No one likes to cut or restrict in cheerleading (kinda how like everyone wants to cut spending in the government but no one is willing to get rid of the tax cut bill). Id WAY prefer to make the current divisions smarter, but since everyone is afraid to lose a piece of the pie EVEN if it is better then let's play the game. Let's make the game work for us.

 

[BlueCat]

(combining arguments from different threads)

I think I would like to clarify where we disagree on the age range of the International teams. Here is what I think that your argument for limiting all "international" divisions to 18+ is:

1. Any significant safety concern overrides economic concerns.
2. Having "adults" on the same team as "minors" automatically represents a significant safety concern.
3. Therefore, we should change the "international" age range despite the economic damage it may cause.

I feel pretty certain that you and I agree on #1. The difference of opinion lies in #2. Let's not insinuate that we automatically care more about money than children if we don't agree with you.

Any plan on how to cut divisions should start with an accurate, comprehensive list of how many teams there are currently in each division. I have not seen such a list.


ASIDE - knowing our various political philosophies, you would probably fall off of your chair if I listed all of the things I would cut from the federal budget. You can accuse me of many things, but not having spending-cut ideas isn't one of them. The difficulty is not in having ideas of what to cut - it is in getting people to agree with you.

 

[King]

(combining arguments from different threads)

I think I would like to clarify where we disagree on the age range of the International teams. Here is what I think that your argument for limiting all "international" divisions to 18+ is:

1. Any significant safety concern overrides economic concerns.
2. Having "adults" on the same team as "minors" automatically represents a significant safety concern.
3. Therefore, we should change the "international" age range despite the economic damage it may cause.

I feel pretty certain that you and I agree on #1. The difference of opinion lies in #2. Let's not insinuate that we automatically care more about money than children if we don't agree with you.

Any plan on how to cut divisions should start with an accurate, comprehensive list of how many teams there are currently in each division. I have not seen such a list.


ASIDE - knowing our various political philosophies, you would probably fall off of your chair if I listed all of the things I would cut from the federal budget. You can accuse me of many things, but not having spending-cut ideas isn't one of them. The difficulty is not in having ideas of what to cut - it is in getting people to agree with you.

Fun to play with.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

 

[King]

(combining arguments from different threads)

I think I would like to clarify where we disagree on the age range of the International teams. Here is what I think that your argument for limiting all "international" divisions to 18+ is:

1. Any significant safety concern overrides economic concerns.
2. Having "adults" on the same team as "minors" automatically represents a significant safety concern.
3. Therefore, we should change the "international" age range despite the economic damage it may cause.

I feel pretty certain that you and I agree on #1. The difference of opinion lies in #2. Let's not insinuate that we automatically care more about money than children if we don't agree with you.

Any plan on how to cut divisions should start with an accurate, comprehensive list of how many teams there are currently in each division. I have not seen such a list.


ASIDE - knowing our various political philosophies, you would probably fall off of your chair if I listed all of the things I would cut from the federal budget. You can accuse me of many things, but not having spending-cut ideas isn't one of them. The difficulty is not in having ideas of what to cut - it is in getting people to agree with you.

Separate from politics (which I would be more than willing to start something in the Random. We had a nice hour and a half long discussion of politics with the family last night after Xmas... yep thats what we do for fun) here is what I see from your argument for the age thing (outside of safety).

There is a significant group of level 5 athletes who have aged out of competing in club divisions. This group is so significant that many gyms can use international teams to 'harvest' these level 5 athletes, charge tuition (i won't ask if it is the same or less as other athletes but I will assume it nets a profit after all costs of coaches, uniforms, lighting, heating /AC, and competition fees have been paid for), and turn a higher profit than they already are. The problem is while the group is significant enough to foster this idea, the group itself is INSIGNIFICANT enough to only have members that are 18+. There is a giant gap between having enough athletes to make I5 self sustaining to only use 18+, but still a large enough population of Level 5 aged out athletes that this should not be ignored by anyone.

Am I correct?