All-Star Usasf/naccc Results Posted

[King]

Story of my LIFE lol... btw, I am sure you are as happy about the large size vote as I am! At least something went well here:)

I am for the sport! I don't know if we will see a huge affect next season, but the season after I think that is when people will really start using the new size.

 

[newcheerdad]

No one likes a wannabe script kiddie.

I challenge you to a code duel at sunrise, sir. Bring your vi editor and a C++ compiler.

 

[Num1Stunta]

I am for the sport! I don't know if we will see a huge affect next season, but the season after I think that is when people will really start using the new size.

I'm already making plans...

 

[nccheerdad]

I have all the respect in the world for the small gyms in America. If you have read any of my previous posts, you would believe me. They are what makes the cheerleading world go around and I absolutely love watching them compete. So, small gym owners/athletes/parents, please don't be offended by what I am about to post.

In looking at the voting results more carefully, I have some deep concerns about the sample used to determine these results. I don't have a vote in any of this, so I did not see the online poll that was completed, so that has me asking some pretty simple questions. Did the USASF collect data on who was actually voting (not names, but demographics)? Do they know the size of the gym that is represented with each vote? Do they know how many votes from each gym were included? Was there or will there be any weighting criteria based on gym membership used in the analysis? Were gyms limited to the number of votes allowed?

One of the reasons I ask these questions is to understand if the proposed rules changes were really that applicable to each and every voter. For example, let's take the heated issue of eliminating Youth 5. A total of 681 votes were tabulated on whether to keep this division or not. That, to me, is a heck of a lot of votes for an issue that really ony impacts less than, say, 5% of the actual voters. If all Stingrays, WC, CEA, CA, ECE, and three or four other gyms' coaches and owners voted, we might be looking at 70 votes at the most. That means that almost 600 "others" are determining the fate of this division - a division in which most will never even get to play. How many of these are small gyms within 60 miles of these large Y5 centers that are fearful of losing there most talented kids down the line? I understand the goal to grow the sport and increase competition, but this would be taking a major step backwards to develop the talent that we have become accustomed to.

Another example would be the push to limit skill sets in the various divisions to increase safety. Again, if so many people are voting to make things "safer," you should probably also wonder how many voted to make these divisions "easier." It's not fair to limit the programs that can actually perform these skills well (safely and effectively) as they wait around for others to catch up. It's like telling a baseball pitcher who can throw the ball really, really fast that he has to throw underhand so he doesn't hurt anyone and so that the other team has a chance to hit the ball.

Again, I am not trying to diminish the importance of the small gym owner, but the total influence/impact needs to be scrutinized. What I have said could also be applicable to many medium-sized gyms who just haven't been that successful in competition.

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.

 

[CheerBizz]

www.usasf.net

Wow, the voting results recently posted. There are so many issues that were voted on and I am still trying to process the changes. I think some of the changes are silly, like reducing the number of members on large teams (again). The crossover situation will surely upset a few people.

 

[CheerBizz]

admin you can merge...sorry.

 

[CGAcheer]

I have all the respect in the world for the small gyms in America. If you have read any of my previous posts, you would believe me. They are what makes the cheerleading world go around and I absolutely love watching them compete. So, small gym owners/athletes/parents, please don't be offended by what I am about to post.

In looking at the voting results more carefully, I have some deep concerns about the sample used to determine these results. I don't have a vote in any of this, so I did not see the online poll that was completed, so that has me asking some pretty simple questions. Did the USASF collect data on who was actually voting (not names, but demographics)? Do they know the size of the gym that is represented with each vote? Do they know how many votes from each gym were included? Was there or will there be any weighting criteria based on gym membership used in the analysis? Were gyms limited to the number of votes allowed?

One of the reasons I ask these questions is to understand if the proposed rules changes were really that applicable to each and every voter. For example, let's take the heated issue of eliminating Youth 5. A total of 681 votes were tabulated on whether to keep this division or not. That, to me, is a heck of a lot of votes for an issue that really ony impacts less than, say, 5% of the actual voters. If all Stingrays, WC, CEA, CA, ECE, and three or four other gyms' coaches and owners voted, we might be looking at 70 votes at the most. That means that almost 600 "others" are determining the fate of this division - a division in which most will never even get to play. How many of these are small gyms within 60 miles of these large Y5 centers that are fearful of losing there most talented kids down the line? I understand the goal to grow the sport and increase competition, but this would be taking a major step backwards to develop the talent that we have become accustomed to.

Another example would be the push to limit skill sets in the various divisions to increase safety. Again, if so many people are voting to make things "safer," you should probably also wonder how many voted to make these divisions "easier." It's not fair to limit the programs that can actually perform these skills well (safely and effectively) as they wait around for others to catch up. It's like telling a baseball pitcher who can throw the ball really, really fast that he has to throw underhand so he doesn't hurt anyone and so that the other team has a chance to hit the ball.

Again, I am not trying to diminish the importance of the small gym owner, but the total influence/impact needs to be scrutinized. What I have said could also be applicable to many medium-sized gyms who just haven't been that successful in competition.

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.

They have access through all of that information, we are registered through our gyms, I think credentialed independent coaches get to vote too.

I'm a small gym owner, I'm for youth 5 and not adding any restrictions to regular level 5, but some of the things in 4 that make it "easier" also make a clearer stunt difference between 4 and 5, and i voted to further restrict the restricted 5 tumbling to make it a better transition from 4 to 5. I'm also against the small gym division in general (that seems to be a regional thing)

and I really hope that they do NOT take into account who voted for what when going forward with the process.
One person One vote

 

[hopskipandjump]

T

I have all the respect in the world for the small gyms in America. If you have read any of my previous posts, you would believe me. They are what makes the cheerleading world go around and I absolutely love watching them compete. So, small gym owners/athletes/parents, please don't be offended by what I am about to post.

In looking at the voting results more carefully, I have some deep concerns about the sample used to determine these results. I don't have a vote in any of this, so I did not see the online poll that was completed, so that has me asking some pretty simple questions. Did the USASF collect data on who was actually voting (not names, but demographics)? Do they know the size of the gym that is represented with each vote? Do they know how many votes from each gym were included? Was there or will there be any weighting criteria based on gym membership used in the analysis? Were gyms limited to the number of votes allowed?

One of the reasons I ask these questions is to understand if the proposed rules changes were really that applicable to each and every voter. For example, let's take the heated issue of eliminating Youth 5. A total of 681 votes were tabulated on whether to keep this division or not. That, to me, is a heck of a lot of votes for an issue that really ony impacts less than, say, 5% of the actual voters. If all Stingrays, WC, CEA, CA, ECE, and three or four other gyms' coaches and owners voted, we might be looking at 70 votes at the most. That means that almost 600 "others" are determining the fate of this division - a division in which most will never even get to play. How many of these are small gyms within 60 miles of these large Y5 centers that are fearful of losing there most talented kids down the line? I understand the goal to grow the sport and increase competition, but this would be taking a major step backwards to develop the talent that we have become accustomed to.

Another example would be the push to limit skill sets in the various divisions to increase safety. Again, if so many people are voting to make things "safer," you should probably also wonder how many voted to make these divisions "easier." It's not fair to limit the programs that can actually perform these skills well (safely and effectively) as they wait around for others to catch up. It's like telling a baseball pitcher who can throw the ball really, really fast that he has to throw underhand so he doesn't hurt anyone and so that the other team has a chance to hit the ball.

Again, I am not trying to diminish the importance of the small gym owner, but the total influence/impact needs to be scrutinized. What I have said could also be applicable to many medium-sized gyms who just haven't been that successful in competition.

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.

The same can be said for the crossover vote. I believe, again, I could be wrong, that the crossover vote is more important to the small gym owner than the large gym owner, but that doesn't mean I don't want the large gyms to have a vote or a say on that issue. I agree with CGA Cheer. One person, one vote.

 

[xpressjag]

I think the Tax ID's are the most interesting because in effect it will have nothing to do with what happens on the mat (for example Happy stated he would just have one umbrella Tax ID to represent ACE to keep it as one giant program). It is a way for us to define a gym. But in turn that means a gym will have to be a legal entity. I think Justin stated that over half the customers do not have a Tax ID (for the Varsity family rebate plan).

I think the original idea behind this policy was to field teams from a single location instead of making these super teams which are becoming popular across the coutry. These multiple gym owners will still find ways for their advanced kids to participate on their satellite gyms teams.

 

[King]

I think the original idea behind this policy was to field teams from a single location instead of making these super teams which are becoming popular across the coutry. These multiple gym owners will still find ways for their advanced kids to participate on their satellite gyms teams.

Correct to finding ways around it (as stated at the meeting). But how do we define a 'program'? I voted for it because now we have a way to classify what IS a program. Saying what is a program had almost as many loopholes and grey areas as our current rules. So I don't really see why any multi-location gym would have a problem with this if they found a way around it and no one has a problem with it.

 

[cspoon]

When do the proposed rule changes take affect...the 2011/2012 season, or the next?

 

[Num1Stunta]

Personally, now that the tax id definition of a program is in place, I think it should be ONE VOTE per GYM. Get your staff together and hash it out, then submit your gym's vote on each rule. Seems like that would solve it, no? It places Large and Small Gyms on an even playing field. The current system, imo, puts small gyms at a disadvantage. We only have 4 certified coaches at our gym, as opposed to some of the larger gyms who have upwards of what 10,15, 20? It just seems that giving each program one vote, that would be fair, no?

 

[BlueCat]

Personally, now that the tax id definition of a program is in place, I think it should be ONE VOTE per GYM. Get your staff together and hash it out, then submit your gym's vote on each rule. Seems like that would solve it, no? It places Large and Small Gyms on an even playing field. The current system, imo, puts small gyms at a disadvantage. We only have 4 certified coaches at our gym, as opposed to some of the larger gyms who have upwards of what 10,15, 20? It just seems that giving each program one vote, that would be fair, no?

Except for the fact that there are MANY more small gyms than large gyms. In fact, I would guess that the total number of coaches from small gyms far outweigh the number of coaches at large gyms. Also, each person's vote should count the same - regardless of how many people are on their staff.

Regarding the Y5 vote: I voted to keep the division, but saying that the only people who should be allowed to vote are those with Y5s is silly to me. One of the biggest problems in our industry is that there are FAR too many divisions. If we start saying that a division with only 4-5 teams in it nationwide can only get eliminated if THOSE 4-5 gyms vote it out, then we will never, ever get any reduction in the total number of divisions.

 

[King]

I like Youth 5 a little restricted.

 

[Num1Stunta]

If the age grid changes to 6/9/12/15/18 doesn't this mean that any tiny, mini, youth, or junior team from the 10-11 (this) season can remain exactly the same for the 11-12 (next) season? That's crazy to think that no one will have to age up.

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.