All-Star Usasf Age Grid To Be Released Soon!

[GoldGal]

Which I understand. I actually didn't think it was a good idea myself.

But again, the majority of the membership voted for the proposal, and I would expect that those who voted for it did so knowing full well what the ramifications of it would be. But maybe that wasn't the case, which is why I suggested in my previous post that maybe a committee needs to flesh these proposals out into something workable to be voted on, with all of the pros/cons clearly spelled out. And then maybe you need a 60% threshold to pass "major" changes, like to the age grid.

I agree with you, especially about a committee reviewing each plank prior to it making the ballot. Every proposal needs to be scrutinized from every angle of the industry which is very tough to do because EVERYONE has their own biases. I may be wrong, but I bet a lot of people who voted for that change were coaches who liked the idea because it would help the talent level of their team - which is ok, but we also need to look at things from the perspective of the ultimate consumer, the parents. By the way, it is very interesting to listen to the difference in the opinions of coaches, gym owners, and event producers who have children versus those who don't. It gives you a whole new perspective!

 

[GoldGal]

OR say IN ADVANCE that the vote is just to get an "idea" of what people are thinking but that in the end it really doesn't matter. Ok off my soapbox, at least until the "rules" come out LOL

I definitely understand your feelings. However, the USASF did publicize the process of what happens after the vote. They were very transparent about the fact that the rules committee can override a vote with the approval of both boards.

 

[yojaehs]

I definitely understand your feelings. However, the USASF did publicize the process of what happens after the vote. They were very transparent about the fact that the rules committee can override a vote with the approval of both boards.

And THAT is my problem

 

[GoldGal]

And THAT is my problem

I understand completely, and I have some of the same frustrations - especially that some of the things that actually happened should have been on the ballot in the first place. My point was that we can't say they didn't tell us before we paid our money. We knew the process and still chose to be part of it. The biggest thing that needs to happen is getting more coaches and gym owners to the meetings, so more people have a say about who sits on the boards through the votes. The more transparent that process becomes, the more people will trust the boards and committees.

 

[imrichhowboutu]

I think another point to make here is that it isn't always what is best for the individual gym... but what is best for the industry and all the players in it. The boards are made up of a variety of people in the industry so different view points are taken into account. No majorly voted on issues were completely done away with. And when you have a split like Youth 5, where it was close, you arent going to make a decision that will impact a few people based on what a lot of people who arent affected thought.

Just as an example.... Rich Allstars has a youth level 2 and a junior level 3 team. I voted to get rid of youth 5. Well why should my vote to get rid of it really matter if i don't plan on fielding one in the next 2 years. Just because i think it is dangerous isn't a good enough reason to what other gyms are doing. I'm sure there are plenty of people that are very happy with a lot of things that happened on the age grids!

 

[yojaehs]

I understand completely, and I have some of the same frustrations - especially that some of the things that actually happened should have been on the ballot in the first place. My point was that we can't say they didn't tell us before we paid our money. We knew the process and still chose to be part of it. The biggest thing that needs to happen is getting more coaches and gym owners to the meetings, so more people have a say about who sits on the boards through the votes. The more transparent that process becomes, the more people will trust the boards and committees.

I agree, yes I "knew" but I guess more of my problem is "why"? Why vote?

 

[yojaehs]

I think another point to make here is that it isn't always what is best for the individual gym... but what is best for the industry and all the players in it. The boards are made up of a variety of people in the industry so different view points are taken into account. No majorly voted on issues were completely done away with. And when you have a split like Youth 5, where it was close, you arent going to make a decision that will impact a few people based on what a lot of people who arent affected thought.

Just as an example.... Rich Allstars has a youth level 2 and a junior level 3 team. I voted to get rid of youth 5. Well why should my vote to get rid of it really matter if i don't plan on fielding one in the next 2 years. Just because i think it is dangerous isn't a good enough reason to what other gyms are doing. I'm sure there are plenty of people that are very happy with a lot of things that happened on the age grids!

I think in that case "rich allstars" should vote on what he thinks is best, what COULD he potentially field, what does he support. Just bc you don't have a dog in the fight doesn't mean that you can't take a step away from YOUR program and vote on what you believe in for the best cheer and cheer future.

 

[GoldGal]

Well why should my vote to get rid of it really matter if i don't plan on fielding one in the next 2 years. Just because i think it is dangerous isn't a good enough reason to what other gyms are doing. I'm sure there are plenty of people that are very happy with a lot of things that happened on the age grids!

Agree. And, especially in the case of the age groupings changing, they were very clear about not wanting to change things just to change it. The saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", was used numerous times.

 

[east2westandbackagain]

Has anyone pulled the voting numbers and compared them to the actual results? I'm working and can't but I hoped one of our ambitious ones on here would.

Also, who was invited and allowed to be a part of these 3 hour long conference calls? Was it just USASF representatives and committee members or could anyone be on the calls?

Well I can tell you that some of us new about it after the fact and we clearly did not get an invite.

 

[RockstarCheer]

The conference calls were by all the members on the USASF Rules committee

 

[GoldGal]

Well I can tell you that some of us new about it after the fact and we clearly did not get an invite.

I believe the conference call was between the executive boards of the NACCC and the USASF along with the Rules Committee. It was not open to the USASF members at large and was never supposed to be. That was part of the publicized rules process.

 

[fabulousity]

I'm not a gym owner, so pardon me if my logic is based on my own naivete... but i would really like to know who would be HARMED if the large divisions were capped at 32? i would think that if a program is capable of fielding 36 level 5 athletes, then having the ability to take your top 32 and trickle down 4 athletes who are "on the bubble" would be a strength to more teams than one. also, i would imagine that i would have an easier time finding nearly 36 level 3 athletes than 36 girls with triple toe backs, two hand fulls, and running pass to double, so i don't understand the cap on lower levels vs. level 5.

it appears to me that large teams in general are a struggle for many gyms to field. perhaps this is the first time i have truly noticed, but i saw numerous teams with 30-35 members listed on competition schedules (even including cross overs). we have 120+ level 5 teams going to worlds to compete in small senior and small limited coed, which may be greater than or equal to the number the number of teams that will be competing in large senior, unlimited coed, medium coed, and large limited combined. so i have a heard time believing that capacity rule was established based on the "industry", what is good for the "industry" is in the trend. if large divisions would have been capped at 32, more depth wouldve been provided to divisions because some small seniors can go 25-30 and large teams can go down 4 people.

when i started allstars 15+ years ago, there was no distinction in size... the idea of competitive cheerleading was far underground, yet it was the standard to produce a team of 20 athletes.. which soon grew to 25... then eventually 30. i don't think that i actually started a distinction until teams could go up to 35 and finally 36, which is a huge gap from only 20 athletes. i think the sport itself has hit a ceiling that everyone needs to adjust to in order to grow the competitive nature of the sport! only 3 teams competing in one division year after year is not competitive, and 60 teams in one division means that about 1/3 of those teams will be over looked.

 

[GymCoach]

copied from newcheerdad

-Eliminate Youth 5. The majority (51-46) voted to eliminate youth 5. The USASF said that wasn't a overwhelming response, and basically decided to keep the division. The membership also voted, by quite a wide margin (75-21), to say that if youth 5 wasn't eliminated that it should be restricted. What ended up happening is that not only was youth 5 not eliminated, it wasn't restricted, and an entirely new division was created. The seems to benefit gyms that have an existing youth 5 program that were concerned about the ramifications of losing it. I didn't see the pressing need to eliminate or restrict youth 5, but again, this is what the membership voted on.


This is the one the upsets me the most, we as coaches and gym owners realize that this is not the best choice for our young athletes. I don't want a youth aged athlete to be doing level 5 stunts! 75% stated that it needed to be modified not create an additional division!

 

[topxofxmyxgame]

copied from newcheerdad

-Eliminate Youth 5. The majority (51-46) voted to eliminate youth 5. The USASF said that wasn't a overwhelming response, and basically decided to keep the division. The membership also voted, by quite a wide margin (75-21), to say that if youth 5 wasn't eliminated that it should be restricted. What ended up happening is that not only was youth 5 not eliminated, it wasn't restricted, and an entirely new division was created. The seems to benefit gyms that have an existing youth 5 program that were concerned about the ramifications of losing it. I didn't see the pressing need to eliminate or restrict youth 5, but again, this is what the membership voted on.


This is the one the upsets me the most, we as coaches and gym owners realize that this is not the best choice for our young athletes. I don't want a youth aged athlete to be doing level 5 stunts! 75% stated that it needed to be modified not create an additional division!

I agree and interestingly enough I doubt that any of these particular teams are actually doing level 5 stunting skills (switch ups, tick tocks, and full ups are not level 5 as of current standards). So in theory the large majority of these teams are consider level 5 due to the handful or even less than that that throw a double or a standing full. There was no need to field 2 divisions for youth 5 and it seems to have been done for one gym and that gym alone because the others that they compete against are currently what would be considered youth 5 restricted next season.

When youth 5 was at it's peak there were no majority skills. A mixed group of athletes some level 3, 4, and 5 made a team that attempted skills that made them level 5. With the new skill based scoring it is nearly impossible t field a youth level 5 team that is equivalent to the full teams skill of Jr and Sr 5.

 

[texas2010]

copied from newcheerdad

-Eliminate Youth 5. The majority (51-46) voted to eliminate youth 5. The USASF said that wasn't a overwhelming response, and basically decided to keep the division. The membership also voted, by quite a wide margin (75-21), to say that if youth 5 wasn't eliminated that it should be restricted. What ended up happening is that not only was youth 5 not eliminated, it wasn't restricted, and an entirely new division was created. The seems to benefit gyms that have an existing youth 5 program that were concerned about the ramifications of losing it. I didn't see the pressing need to eliminate or restrict youth 5, but again, this is what the membership voted on.


This is the one the upsets me the most, we as coaches and gym owners realize that this is not the best choice for our young athletes. I don't want a youth aged athlete to be doing level 5 stunts! 75% stated that it needed to be modified not create an additional division!

I am just a parent "with no dog in this fight" as they say. My cp is 14. But the way i see it is, if you feel that it is not appropriate they gave you restricted place to put your athletes. They just also left a place for those that do think it is appropriate. It's not that I feel one is right and the other is wrong, but can't they just coexist? The coaches that choose to do the unrestricted may have less competition, but if that's okay with them, why does everyone that it doesn't affect care? And for those that want to let their kids with fulls participate then why not give them a less intimidating place to do it.