All-Star Usasf/naccc Results Posted

[MissCongeniality]

I voted against the EIN for this reason: I think that there is a better way

We have to register all of our athletes with the USASF anyways next season, so why not define a "program" within that registration system. Then it is set for the year, if you're large you're large if you're small you're small, if you include all of your locations then they are all included if you want them separate then register it separately either way you're set for the season.
(unless of course you're a border line small gym and your numbers fluctuate)

EIN's can change whenever the lawyers and the owners decide to change things, or you could have the parent company over the smaller companies and pick and choose which EIN to go with.

CGACheer... I am quoting you not because I don't agree with you but rather because I have a question about this whole small/large EIN program/team thing. SO..... if (as in your example) Giant Allstars up in Alaska (ok totally a made up name) with 8 locations but decides to list each separately (separate EIN or whatever) Can Giant then cross compete athletes between their 8 locations or does the use of separate EIN (or however they define/register program) prevent that? I'm just thinking is Giant Allstars Sitka really a "small team" if they are able to select athletes for their level 4 team from all 8 gym locations? And does it matter whether they DO select or fill in athletes from all 8 locations or whether they don't (but have the ability to?) Just some thoughts....

 

[MissCongeniality]

I think it's important for people in this sport to realize that they can't just up and leave every time they don't get their way about something. And that happens quite often. I like the rule personally. I am so sick and tired of people coming to tryouts, preventing someone else from making a team, then quitting right before or during competition season. August 31st gives them enough time to figure out what they want to do without making the team suffer for their choices.

I concur!! One year my daughter was miserable on the team she was on (gym she was at) and injured to boot! The recovery time from the injury continued to get drawn out more and more. She wanted to quit. (The injury was the icing on the already unhappy here cake!) I told her ... If you quit you do not compete ANYWHERE else for the season. That is the choice you make. This was in early September. She agreed to that (And no, I probably would not have let her quit had she not been physically incapacitated from even participating!) When she was "whole again" she took tumbling classes at various gyms but did not compete for the entire year. A year without competitions went by fast fast fast! Her skills weren't affected at all...in fact she came back with more strength and stamina (after many months of physical therapy!)

 

[Jessicalynn]

i like the thought of no cross overs for small gym .... but what i dont understand is why its ok for large gyms to do it and not small gyms ??

 

[Jessicalynn]

For reference (and because I'm extremely bored) I went through and made the following tallys on what I think most likely WILL pass and what I think MAYBE will pass (decision was based on at least 10% difference in votes. If these changes had a difference greater than 10% between Yes and No, they were WILL pass. If they got less than 10% difference, they got MAYBE. If they were contingent on a decision that was less than 10%, they were put in maybe with a notation).

WILL PASS:
#13- L4 Stunts that full-up to extended must be caught at 2 feet. (77.30% Yes AND 19.83% No)
#14- L4 Braced Inversions must have at least one person connected on each side of top person at prep or below. (60.34% Yes AND 35.78% No)
#15- L4 Tosses allow hitch-kick single full tosses (58.19% Yes AND 39.37% No)
#16 + #17- L5 Restricted tumbling is more limited in skills. No standing fulls, no full punch fulls, etc. (80.89% Yes AND 16.81% No; 80.11% Yes AND 17.67% No Respectively)
#18- L5 Restricted Tosses may not exceed 3 tricks (i.e. hitch kick full, kick double) (81.61% Yes AND 15.95% No)
#19- Crossovers- Limit by # of TEAMS athlete may compete on per day (70.26% Yes AND 28.74% No)
#20- Crossovers- Choice A with 2 teams (57.33%) Choice B with 3 teams (38.36%)
#23- Ethics: No Recruiting at competitions (84.48% Yes AND 14.51% No)
#24- Large Division Size Change (60.49% Yes AND 38.94% No)
#32- Change Coed Divisions (66.09% Yes AND 28.30% No)
#33- Change Coed Divisions to Format Shown (73.42% Yes AND 22.13% No)
#43- No Tosses in Tiny/Mini REGARDLESS of Level (69.25% Yes AND 28.88% No)
#46- Delete Semi (Which will happen anyway with the pass of 32/33) (56.03% Yes AND 38.22% No)
#49- An athlete may only cheer for ONE gym per USASF season unless released (A 'season' was defined by the previous item #48) (77.87% Yes AND 19.54% No)

MAYBE PASS:
#9- Modify Level 4.2 Age Range (48.42% Yes AND 49.71% No)
*#10- Modify Level 4.2 Age Range to 12-18 (62.64%)
#11- L4 Release moves that end in an extended position MUST originate from the ground (48.56% Yes AND 47.99% No)
#21- Limit Crossovers by PERCENTAGE (51.72% Yes AND 46.84% No)
*#22- Limit Crossovers by listed percentages: 20% (29.45%); 25% (63.65%)
#25- Large Division # of Participants: 21-32 (42.24%); 21-30 (52.44%)
#28- Change Current Age LEVEL Grid (42.96% Yes AND 53.59% No)
*#29- Change Age LEVEL Grid: Choice B (Eliminate Mini 3 and Youth 5). (76.72%)
#30- Change Age Divisions (54.02% Yes AND 44.40% No)
#31- Change How Divisions are Split: Coed/AG THEN S/L (44.25%); S/L THEN Coed/AG (52.87%)
#36- Change # of Teams Needed for Small Gym Split (43.53% Yes AND 54.02% No)
*#37- New # of Teams Needed for Split: 4 teams (29.60%); 5 teams (62.50%)
#39- Eliminate Youth 5 (51.15% Yes AND 46.70% No)
*#40-41- If Y5 is NOT Eliminated, Impose Tumbling/Stunting Restrictions (75.86% Yes AND 21.12% No; 66.67% Yes AND 30.46% No Respectively)
*#42- If Y5 IS Eliminated, Create JRestricted5 (69.25% Yes AND 28.88% No)

(#10, #29, #37 All needed the points above them to pass, and many of them were too close for me to feel definitive based on the percentages either yes OR no. #39-42 all were the Y5 ones, which I feel might change seeing as the restrictions passed so nicely. We'll see on those)

so correct me if i am wrong cause i prob am ..... cause im slightly confused is this saying that level 5 can not do standing fulls anymore? what about the cheerleaders who have standing doubles ( not saying i do im just curious) it seems like they are trying to take away talent ? can someone clarify this

 

[coachTSC]

so correct me if i am wrong cause i prob am ..... cause im slightly confused is this saying that level 5 can not do standing fulls anymore? what about the cheerleaders who have standing doubles ( not saying i do im just curious) it seems like they are trying to take away talent ? can someone clarify this

LEVEL 5 RESTRICTED (formerly senior open 5) can no longer compete standing fulls (if this actually passes)

 

[CGAcheer]

CGACheer... I am quoting you not because I don't agree with you but rather because I have a question about this whole small/large EIN program/team thing. SO..... if (as in your example) Giant Allstars up in Alaska (ok totally a made up name) with 8 locations but decides to list each separately (separate EIN or whatever) Can Giant then cross compete athletes between their 8 locations or does the use of separate EIN (or however they define/register program) prevent that? I'm just thinking is Giant Allstars Sitka really a "small team" if they are able to select athletes for their level 4 team from all 8 gym locations? And does it matter whether they DO select or fill in athletes from all 8 locations or whether they don't (but have the ability to?) Just some thoughts....

I think the intent of the rule is to make it to where super sized multi location gyms have to choose, whether they are to be counted as one large gym which can share athletes or if they want to be several small gyms, that get to compete small gym but can't share athletes.

But since it would all be under the same people anyway, you could just sign the release for the kid to participate in your other gym, and still count all of your gyms as separate gyms. Unless there is like a week long processing period or something

 

[SaraDee023]

I agree with the "let the votes stand as voted by the coaches." We dont redo votes for the president of the United States. This really shouldnt be any different no matter how close they were. Although, Youth 5 kids blow my mind!! Id allow that change. ;)

AGREED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SaraDee023]

in my opinion i think they should keep youth 5.....if the kids have the ability, then they have the ability.

 

[SharkDad]

CGACheer... I am quoting you not because I don't agree with you but rather because I have a question about this whole small/large EIN program/team thing. SO..... if (as in your example) Giant Allstars up in Alaska (ok totally a made up name) with 8 locations but decides to list each separately (separate EIN or whatever) Can Giant then cross compete athletes between their 8 locations or does the use of separate EIN (or however they define/register program) prevent that? I'm just thinking is Giant Allstars Sitka really a "small team" if they are able to select athletes for their level 4 team from all 8 gym locations? And does it matter whether they DO select or fill in athletes from all 8 locations or whether they don't (but have the ability to?) Just some thoughts....

In the small/gym large gym thread I asked for examples of gyms taking advantage. I got plenty, but they all included event producers that made a mistake, don't do any research even for big name gyms to properly place small vs large gym categories, or actually had rules that allowed it.

Like many other rules, it will be up to the event producers to follow through on enforcement.

 

[SharkDad]

Yeah, I'm mixed on that one... I like it for this particular season, because I'm at a very small gym, and once they age out of juniors, we are only offering one senior team. There are at least 5 girls who I don't want next year, just because the skills and attitude aren't there. Without this rule change, I'm getting stuck with them... it will benefit those particular girls, the junior team, AND my team to keep them on juniors another year.

I hope they aren't reading this.

 

[Nothanks]

i posted this in a different thread where the topic of EIN was being discussed, but i think i'll get a better answer from this thread...
maybe i'm just not tax-educated enough, the question just doesn't explain it enough for me to get it or i don't understand the way some of these gyms work with all of their locations, but i don't see how putting an EIN umbrella over all the gym locations in a program would hurt them...the locations would still be paying taxes separately, right? i think it would make it easier on the satellite programs to only submit the information to the "owner" and have them deal with all the actual tax stuff at once. and that way they would know if it was all in at once, and not worry about one gym not filing or doing something incorrectly or whatever else can go wrong with it...
and i like that it does give the definition of a program--i love seeing that big gyms get SO big that they have to create another location because it shows an increase of interest and love for the sport, and it give the coaches and owners more credibility. plus, it creates a bigger fan base at competitions to cheer you on! :)

sorry if i'm extremely naive on the subject, but i just don't understand why someone would be unhappy about this...

 

[SharkDad]

I hope that the USASF and whoever else makes the final decisions on rules changes takes into consideration the weight of the voting population and how some of these changes would negatively impact the growth potential of this sport that we all love.

Your type of data analysis is what the sport needs to make future decisions on safety, leveling, etc.

The point you make of program representation can be made the other way. Just under 700 people voted on the various rules proposals. I'd guess thats somehwere between 30-40% of the number of actual gym owners/coaches shoe could possibly vote. If anyone wants better representation across the board for the sport, they need to become a member and convince the other coaches/gym owners to do the same.

 

[nccheerdad]

The purpose of my post wasn't to diminish the importance of each individual vote, but rather to encourage the final decision makers to be as informed as possible with regard to the voting population - particularly on the items where the differences weren't significant. The make-up of our sport is very heterogeneous and it is important to understand differences. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) one size does not fit all.

 

[SharkDad]

I got it and think it was a great point. But for anyone else out there who would wanted to complain about results I would ask "are you and your gym a member?"

700 is an improvement and I like where the voting process is headed, but USASF can't be an effective governing body if the majority of the sport doesn't want to be governed.

 

[mollymags]

in my opinion i think they should keep youth 5.....if the kids have the ability, then they have the ability.

the division is basically dead. there are very, very few teams competing in this division at this point, and not many of those are true level 5 teams. eliminating the division keeps gyms from finding a few level 5s, filling the rest of the team with lower level athletes, and pushing those lower level kids to quickly learn level 5 skills. i'm willing to bet it's much more difficult and dangerous to squeeze level 5 skills out of a 9 year old over the course of a summer than it would be with a 13 year old. if you've got a true level 5 youth-aged athlete, put them on junior 5. i have a feeling that's where most of the current youth 5 athletes are, anyway.