All-Star Vent On Nca's Sandbagging Policy

[lacin123]

What I see on the West Coast isn’t exactly sandbagging but stacking teams to win. This is happening with the large gyms that have several teams. I see it with one very well-known gym that usually sweeps wins at competition. I’ll see level 4 and 5 athletes crossing over to compete on level 2 and 3 teams. How is a true level 3 team suppose to compete against another level 3 team with athletes throwing perfect tumbling with tucks 7 feet high and hyper-extended jumps? The competition companies will even work with these gyms and schedule the teams so those crossing over aren’t too tired to compete!

Most sports are regulated so they have to declare the level of play before the actual season starts. Once declared, that is the level they compete. NO TURNING BACK! My son plays hockey, and once a roster is submitted, the alternates are only allowed if there is an injury. A release is needed to leave one team to play on another whether it is within the same organization or another organization. The release needs to be board approved before it becomes valid. This keeps the playing field even, fair, and competitive so there is no such thing as one team sweeping a season. If a team is set up unfairly to win, what fun is competition? In fact, why compete?

 

[King]

I think we need to clarify each others positions.

I believe you all are saying that team stacking, in general, is wrong.

I don't disagree. I think dropping down it feels a bit unfair when you compete against a team that does that. I am not arguing for it. I am saying the motivations of these gyms and the way the industry is going just means people are taking a legal advantage. NCA is doing a good job forcing gyms to discuss their policies about dropping just for one competition. But I think in a few years dropping for just NCA won't be an issue. People will be 'dropping' the entire season to be extremely competitive where ever they go.

And, right or wrong, it is now happening. And the more it happens the more it becomes a part of how you pick your team. If team A stacked their level 3 with all level 5 athletes and won Senior Level 3 handedly that way for a few years in a row how long before another gym does the exact same thing to just be competitive. Then once two gyms do it... it will go off like gang busters. Then it will spread farther than just NCA. It will be at all the big ones (Jamfest, CHEERSPORT, Spirit Sports, UCA) where you know you have to do it just to be competitive. It will be a slow creep.... and then everyone will do it. Kids are not dumb, but their current expectations of what they can compete and accomplish is a part of the current culture. If it is just an accepted part of the culture that you have to be HIGHLY proficient just to compete at a level then there won't be many complaints that the kid working on her full finally made level 3 because that team is just TOUGH to make.

Level declaring at the beginning of the season is tough. Declaring at tryouts is gonna force a lot of gyms to be more conservative sooner (especially the second year it has to be done and they got burned year one by being too ambitious). Then what are the pieces that say it is the same team? NCA has an advantage being so late in the season that it would be hard to skirt around the rules to compete just at NCA with this team. But what makes the team at NCA the same team? The division? If I add one boy can I switch levels because it is a different division? You can't tell a team they HAVE to stay in a certain division because what happens if people get hurt and that team is no longer big enough to be in the large division? Or more people come into the gym for that team. Do you deny them a spot because that would change their team declaration? Or that boy because it would change division? Outside of NCA it is practically unenforceable. Then when all these teams do the same actions, change teams, drop levels, even with all the declarations, everyone will get upset because now they are really cheating.

So, I think my solution is that everyone picks their teams the same way. To be extremely highly competitive in each level. When we all pick our teams that way there can be no complaints that someone dropped the level to compete because the level is stacked as is.

 

[tumbleyoda]

In principle about picking teams based on mastery of skills, I do not disagree. One issue is what one sees as mastery another one sees differently. For example when looking at layouts, many teams put in layouts that are technically high whips or layouts with pikes on the backside even before the feet pass vertical. In my mind that is not a layout yet they are often credited as layouts. Those with true technically perfect layouts in height and form are often said to be sandbagging from level 5. This goes again back to judging criteria, training, and standards, even more than in the gym. If these bad layouts were truly being deducted for every time, or if they were not being given majority of Layouts attempted vs completed properly then I also think this would have the same effect as what you are saying. Then coaches would have to think twice before making the decision to put bad technique on the floor simply to get majority because those bad layouts and tucked BHSx2 to fulls wont count. The only tucked full I would count is a standing full. That change right there would alter scores dramatically.

The second again is simply numbers. I know it often is portrayed as hating on big gyms for being big but it is a simple reality. If you have over 300 kids in your program the chances of you being able to make better competitive true level teams is far greater than the gym with under 100. If you have 600 the chances are that you are able to make better competitive true level teams than the gym with 300.

In the future gyms (especially small gyms) may need to focus less on how many teams they have, or even what division they will be in, and more on the actual quality of skills from every athlete period. (Which is essentially what kingston is saying) This may mean you drop two so - so teams, in favor of a large that will compete against programs that have been strong in that division for many years. The number of teams will go down but the quality should pick up. Which is better than competing against teams and beating them by a "gajillion" points because they clearly were not competitive in that division or at that competition (NCA, Jamfest Indy, CheerSport, UCA)

 

[newcheerdad]

If your gym's mentality is that "you have to have mastered all the skills for a level before you can compete at that level", then that's fine. It's even a competitive advantage for teams that have that mentality today, and in the long run I agree that's better for the sport. In the short run, I could see some kids bristling under the notion that they've got a full and they're being asked to perform on a team that can only do robhs tucks. So there's definitely a transition period there - I agree with kingston on that.

But if you've created this (for example) level 4 team with kids that have "mastered" these skills, and are competing them successfully - there's no good reason to have them compete at level 2 for a particular competition. There's no good reason to have that level 4 team crossing over, en masse, to a level 2 team. It's those situations that crossover and sandbagging rules need to address.

And that's why I think athlete credentialing will help that work.

You'd obviously have to have a way to change an athlete's credentialed level during the season (a limit of one change per season, up/down one level only) and it would have to be tied to a somewhat liberal rule about the percentage of athletes on a team needing to be credentialed at the level they're competing at. I've proposed the "majority rule" because it's easy math, but it can be 60 or 70 or 80 percent of a team as well.

I'm sure most coaches do this kind of assessment every season already, but a credentialing requirement would codify it and would make gyms really think about what level their teams should be performing at. (Rather than just deciding on a level for business reasons and hoping that the kids reach up to it if it's too high, or accept it if it's too low.)

Are there ways to game the system? Of course. I could take kids who could easily compete level 5 and credential them all for a level 3 team, but then I can't go back and re-credential them as level 5 kids later on down the line. I could still use them as crossovers for a level 5 team as long as I didn't violate the "majority rule", which gives me flexibility.

I actually athlete credentialing works in concert with the idea of skill mastery, not against it.

 

[cupieqt]

If your gym's mentality is that "you have to have mastered all the skills for a level before you can compete at that level", then that's fine. It's even a competitive advantage for teams that have that mentality today, and in the long run I agree that's better for the sport. In the short run, I could see some kids bristling under the notion that they've got a full and they're being asked to perform on a team that can only do robhs tucks. So there's definitely a transition period there - I agree with kingston on that.

But if you've created this (for example) level 4 team with kids that have "mastered" these skills, and are competing them successfully - there's no good reason to have them compete at level 2 for a particular competition. There's no good reason to have that level 4 team crossing over, en masse, to a level 2 team. It's those situations that crossover and sandbagging rules need to address.

And that's why I think athlete credentialing will help that work.

You'd obviously have to have a way to change an athlete's credentialed level during the season (a limit of one change per season, up/down one level only) and it would have to be tied to a somewhat liberal rule about the percentage of athletes on a team needing to be credentialed at the level they're competing at. I've proposed the "majority rule" because it's easy math, but it can be 60 or 70 or 80 percent of a team as well.

I'm sure most coaches do this kind of assessment every season already, but a credentialing requirement would codify it and would make gyms really think about what level their teams should be performing at. (Rather than just deciding on a level for business reasons and hoping that the kids reach up to it if it's too high, or accept it if it's too low.)

Are there ways to game the system? Of course. I could take kids who could easily compete level 5 and credential them all for a level 3 team, but then I can't go back and re-credential them as level 5 kids later on down the line. I could still use them as crossovers for a level 5 team as long as I didn't violate the "majority rule", which gives me flexibility.

I actually athlete credentialing works in concert with the idea of skill mastery, not against it.

I discussed this with my level 3 senior team today (and only being a senior team with 2/10 actual senior age. The rest are junior age). We talked about how it would be so easy to drop to level 2 and win. But they've won every competition this year at l3. They laughed about it like it was a really silly idea after discussing it for awhile. I wanted to see how they would feel about doing that because they KNOW they are a very strong level 3 with some solid level 4 and 5 skills also. They said it would feel like cheating since they've had such a good year at their current level.

I did NOT ask them if the competition they attended mattered. If it meant NCA jackets or Cheersport jackets would it change their mind? Idk. I hope not.

 

[krissycole44]

how does this rule work with level 4.2? I noticed that at NCA cross overs are allowed to cross between level 4, 2 and 4.2. So if a team competed at level 4 all season but then dropped to 4.2 for just NCA are the violating this policy? It's like a trick question!