All-Star Vent On Nca's Sandbagging Policy

[newcheerdad]

If larger gyms start picking their teams this way, is that bad? If they pick so that their lowest common denominator is a master at the level they are competing is that cheating?

It's not cheating. Never even suggested that it was. If you have the benefit of a huge base of kids to pick from, great. You might have the luxury of having a senior 4 team that contains kids with level 5 skills just be numbers alone, and you'll probably do well.

But where I think the line gets hazy is when you start saying, "Hey, I'm going to take my senior 4 kids and make them a senior 2 team." That might be within the current rules, and there might not be a way to regulate it, but it seems to violate the fundamental spirit of "fair play".

I think there's a difference between creating the strongest team you can, and taking a team down to a significantly lower level for the sake of winning. If you want a team of kids with excellent level 2 skills on your level 2 team, great. Taking kids who have excellent level 4 skills and making them a level 2 team, not so much.

 

[King]

Leveling individual kids I think is practically impossible as their skills can change, up and down, quite quickly.

So if someone picks a team at the beginning of the year to compete level 3 ALL year long and is full of level 5 kids and if one level 5 team competes level 5 all year long and then drops down for one competition (the same one that competes level 3 all year long with level 5 kids) what is the difference?

Why SHOULDNT gyms do either?

 

[newcheerdad]

Leveling individual kids I think is practically impossible as their skills can change, up and down, quite quickly.

So if someone picks a team at the beginning of the year to compete level 3 ALL year long and is full of level 5 kids and if one level 5 team competes level 5 all year long and then drops down for one competition (the same one that competes level 3 all year long with level 5 kids) what is the difference?

Why SHOULDNT gyms do either?

Two words: fair play.

Again, this is about ensuring, to the best of our abilities, that kids are competing against kids of similar age and skill. That's why we have levels and age groups in cheer, just like other sports. Right now, we're depending on the good faith of the teams we're competing against when they say that this group of athletes is a level 2, 3, 4 or 5 team. There's little in the rules that prevent programs from violating that trust.

I mean, I can bring in an ODP team to play our rec kids in soccer. They're both the same age, it's the same game, but the ability levels are entirely different. The skills that are difficult for the rec kids are old hat for the ODP kids. And it ends up being unfair and less fun for both teams. It's not nearly as fun to win 12-0 as you might think it is.

This isn't about the grey area. It isn't about the team that's a borderline senior 4 team that either stays senior 3 and is strong in that division, or goes senior 4 for the experience. This is about wholesale attempts to game the system by taking athletes that are far superior in skill and training and having them compete against those who aren't even close the same level. It might be perfectly legal within the rules, and it might even be acceptable under some veneer of "perfection vs. progression", but there's no way that I'd consider it fair.

 

[King]

Two words: fair play.

Again, this is about ensuring, to the best of our abilities, that kids are competing against kids of similar age and skill. That's why we have levels and age groups in cheer, just like other sports. Right now, we're depending on the good faith of the teams we're competing against when they say that this group of athletes is a level 2, 3, 4 or 5 team. There's little in the rules that prevent programs from violating that trust.

I mean, I can bring in an ODP team to play our rec kids in soccer. They're both the same age, it's the same game, but the ability levels are entirely different. The skills that are difficult for the rec kids are old hat for the ODP kids. And it ends up being unfair and less fun for both teams.

This isn't about the grey area. It isn't about the team that's a borderline senior 4 team that either stays senior 3 and is strong in that division, or goes senior 4 for the experience. This is about wholesale attempts to game the system by taking athletes that are far superior in skill and training and having them compete against their peers. It might be perfectly legal within the rules, and it might even be acceptable under some veneer of "perfection vs. progression", but it might not be the fairest thing in the world.

But how do you prevent it? Credentialing individual athletes?

As well there are stark differences in how a soccer team is formed and played and a cheerleading team is created. There are no true 'alternates' in cheerleading. You are not int he routine and can sit on the sidelines and be a base... but if a flyer gets hurt it is not like you can go in and take their place. In soccer if a Forward is injured and all that is left on the sidelines is a midfielder or the extra keeper the team can still play.

You cannot and should not setup a system that rewards restraint. There has to be an incentive outside of moral obligation. If I am a gym owner and I see that if I take this level 4/5 team to level 3 and I can win and dominate all season everywhere I go AND in turn that success helps those kids spread my good name and increase business why shouldn't that be done?

(Although I do find that lots of success has less to do with winning and more to do with organization and a safe environment.)

 

[newcheerdad]

You cannot and should not setup a system that rewards restraint. There has to be an incentive outside of moral obligation. If I am a gym owner and I see that if I take this level 4/5 team to level 3 and I can win and dominate all season everywhere I go AND in turn that success helps those kids spread my good name and increase business why shouldn't that be done?

(Although I do find that lots of success has less to do with winning and more to do with organization and a safe environment.)

I think this is the crux of the discussion here:

If I am a gym owner and I see that if I take this level 4/5 team to level 3 and I can win and dominate all season everywhere I go AND in turn that success helps those kids spread my good name and increase business why shouldn't that be done?

Because to me, this is the whole crux of the argument. Yes, it's good business to win and be successful. It'll get more kids into the gym. It'll put more trophies on the wall. It'll put more dollars in the pocket.

And I do not begrudge any gym owner who puts their own $$$ into a business to try to maximize their investment.

But there has to be a look at the bigger picture - because that level 4/5 team that went level 3 and won every competition might have made their team look great. But they did it at the expense of other teams, some of whom might not be around to compete next year thanks to that bigger gym. They did it at the expense of other kids, who went to that competition expecting to compete against teams of similar skill and ability, and were beaten by what essentially amount to a bunch of ringers.

No, King, I don't have an easy answer. I like the idea of athlete credentialing and a majority rule, but it's by no means a panacea. I don't have an incentive for programs to play fair other than to ask a simple question:

Why'd you start an all-star cheer gym in the first place?

 

[CCCBeBad]

Its happening all around the nation.... here in Greenville a gym had tryouts a month ago to build a small level 2 team. This team consists of level 3-4-5 kids..... I just do not know what that is teaching our athletes... that we can just drop to an easier level to be more successful.....

 

[aggie1983]

While I may have missed the point (but I don't think so.) I have a problem with the above hypothetical illustrations regarding true level 4 or 5 teams deciding to compete all year as level 3 in order to ensure a winning season. I have a hard time seeing a gym owner doing this, but more importantly I have a virtually impossible time seeing the athletes and their parents going along with it. The athletes want to throw skills once they master them, they are not going to be content competing lower skills than they have, nor would they be content stunting the less difficult skills once having mastered the harder skills. But crossovers allow them to do just that, so they get the best of both worlds. But I just don't see them being willing to only compete the lower levels. And while parents love when their cps win, they also want to see them competitively progress. It just seems this argument misses the point of the thread which started with teams dropping just for the bigs and grew to include stacking lower level teams with kids also on higher level teams. And I will echo the point made often, small gyms rarely have the luxury of having all athletes on a team after tryouts having the level skills, but you move up so as not to lose those higher level kids to another gym. So you start out with a competitive disadvantage. So you bust your tail to try to make up for it and sometimes it pays off.

 

[CCCBeBad]

Well with the case in Greenville the gym is only doing it for NCA and are not taking the true teams the athletes are on. Their justification to parents about it all is that "thats just how it is done at NCA" haha what a crock

 

[King]

Why someone started a business and why someone continues to be in business are two separate things. I started Cheerleading because a cute girl said I should. I'm still involved because I rather enjoy it. People and situations change.

As well would I look down on someone who said they started a gym to make money and have a career in Cheerleading? No. Businesses have to be successful and make money to survive. And if a gym thought they could only survive and be successful if they stack their teams you won't be able to stop them asking them to play fair.

Individual athlete credentialing won't work either. Kids gain and lose skills quite fast. Cheerleading is a highly perishable skill. As well who would credential athletes? The coaches themselves? They could just certify them only for lower levels.

The way teams are made and created in cheer is pushing everyone to be masters of certain levels all the way around without compromise. As well to use the youngest and smallest flyers with skill you can to be able to perform the hardest possible building skills with ease.

So as a gym owner if you know your competition is going to stack teams should you to keep up or risk losing to that gym all year long?

 

[SharkDad]

Depends on the team. I feel like for the top 3 in any division at Worlds anything less than 1st is slightly disappointing.

For a smaller gym at NCA if they hit their routine and get 10th they might be ecstatic.

Either way if you built your team to win Worlds or to get 10th at NCA, is it not won and lost at tryouts?

There are 16-24 teams in the country who's goal at tryouts is to win Worlds. Let's say 50 to be conservative and for the sake of argument.

For all the rest of the gyms/teams in the country, you either build a team for best athlete development this year or to win every competition. From my experience, you sacrifice one for the other so the trick is to find the blanance.

If all you care about is wining every competition and compete level 5 athletes at level 3 all year, you will most likely win, but those athletes will probably not be happy they couln't compete there skills and you won't see them again next year.

I have personally seen athletes that take 3-5th place at competitions all year, but they have 2 new skills every year and they know their coaches care about them, so they are happy to stay with that program.

 

[King]

While I may have missed the point (but I don't think so.) I have a problem with the above hypothetical illustrations regarding true level 4 or 5 teams deciding to compete all year as level 3 in order to ensure a winning season. I have a hard time seeing a gym owner doing this, but more importantly I have a virtually impossible time seeing the athletes and their parents going along with it. The athletes want to throw skills once they master them, they are not going to be content competing lower skills than they have, nor would they be content stunting the less difficult skills once having mastered the harder skills. But crossovers allow them to do just that, so they get the best of both worlds. But I just don't see them being willing to only compete the lower levels. And while parents love when their cps win, they also want to see them competitively progress. It just seems this argument misses the point of the thread which started with teams dropping just for the bigs and grew to include stacking lower level teams with kids also on higher level teams. And I will echo the point made often, small gyms rarely have the luxury of having all athletes on a team after tryouts having the level skills, but you move up so as not to lose those higher level kids to another gym. So you start out with a competitive disadvantage. So you bust your tail to try to make up for it and sometimes it pays off.

It is a slow migration. What wins in level 4 now is way more mastery than what won in level 4 just a few short years ago.

Could you imagine a team winning level 2 at NCA that doesn't have close to majority back walkover back handsprings?

EVery year that someone wins with a certain amount of talent it is the watermark of every team in that division next year to pick a team that can do more than the winning team past year.

 

[King]

There are 16-24 teams in the country who's goal at tryouts is to win Worlds. Let's say 50 to be conservative and for the sake of argument.

For all the rest of the gyms/teams in the country, you either build a team for best athlete development this year or to win every competition. From my experience, you sacrifice one for the other so the trick is to find the blanance.

If all you care about is wining every competition and compete level 5 athletes at level 3 all year, you will most likely win, but those athletes will probably not be happy they couln't compete there skills and you won't see them again next year.

I have personally seen athletes that take 3-5th place at competitions all year, but they have 2 new skills every year and they know their coaches care about them, so they are happy to stay with that program.

I have been on a team just happy to get 4th (go Ga Tech!) so I do understand the mentality. But as competitions get harder and change everyone's perspective changes too. If the athletes have been conditioned and taught from the culture that to be competitive you need to have solid skills in any level then having a full but only all around skills in level 3 is going to mean we more move to the over dominant athletes in each level.

Is that not the way gymnastics works? You don't compete a level unless you are ready?

 

[tdittmar]

While I may have missed the point (but I don't think so.) I have a problem with the above hypothetical illustrations regarding true level 4 or 5 teams deciding to compete all year as level 3 in order to ensure a winning season. I have a hard time seeing a gym owner doing this, but more importantly I have a virtually impossible time seeing the athletes and their parents going along with it. The athletes want to throw skills once they master them, they are not going to be content competing lower skills than they have, nor would they be content stunting the less difficult skills once having mastered the harder skills. But crossovers allow them to do just that, so they get the best of both worlds. But I just don't see them being willing to only compete the lower levels. And while parents love when their cps win, they also want to see them competitively progress. It just seems this argument misses the point of the thread which started with teams dropping just for the bigs and grew to include stacking lower level teams with kids also on higher level teams. And I will echo the point made often, small gyms rarely have the luxury of having all athletes on a team after tryouts having the level skills, but you move up so as not to lose those higher level kids to another gym. So you start out with a competitive disadvantage. So you bust your tail to try to make up for it and sometimes it pays off.

Unfortunately, I have read of gyms doing this several times on the boards. I know of a gym near us that had a youth 5 and dropped to youth 2 for NCA a few years ago. They competed all year level 5 and then ended up winning the level 2 division. Not sure how the parents felt, but they must have gone along with it since they all showed up in Dallas. I have a feeling that if that team had to register with the USASF as a level 2 team in the beginning of the season, parents would have been livid. It was one competition and if you are going to spend all that money to travel to Dallas, you might as well make sure you leave with a jacket.....

 

[BlueCat]

Multiple thoughts:

1. Gym that repeatedly compete their kids "down" to win titles do NOT attract more kids in the long run. I have seen MANY gyms try this and have it backfire. You main gain a banner, but still have a net loss of athletes. People aren't fooled by why your team won.

2. We have been forced to continually raise the bar for athletes "graduating" to a higher skill level. It used to be that when started working on L3 skills, you would be put on a L3 team. You would now get destroyed at nationals if you do that. You have to have the vast majority of your team at or near mastery of all of the level skills from the start in order to be remotely competitive. There are positive points to this, but I think that it is an overall negative.

3. I think that competition results are far overrated in terms of building your business. Being competitive is important, but not as important as the athlete/parents feeling positive about their experiences at the gym. People hardly ever believe me when I tell them that, but it is true.

4. Winning often works the other way - particularly as you start talking about winning NCA and/or Worlds. We tend to lose WAY more athletes as a percentage off of winning teams than teams that get 2nd, 3rd, etc.

 

[newcheerdad]

3. I think that competition results are far overrated in terms of building your business. Being competitive is important, but not as important as the athlete/parents feeling positive about their experiences at the gym. People hardly ever believe me when I tell them that, but it is true.

The key word in there is "competitive". I don't think it's as important to win all the time as it is to feel like you're in the game and are competing against teams of similar levels.

And it works both ways. It's discouraging to finish last, and be far behind, and to feel like no matter what you do you don't have a chance to win. But it's also not particularly fun to win all the time and not feel challenged. Kids aren't dumb - they know when the banner or trophy isn't really earned.

That's why to me, competing at a level that is a reasonable approximation of your team's ability isn't just fair to your athletes and other teams, it potentially makes more business sense.