All-Star Ways To Eliminate Sandbagging

[TheUltimateFan]

Another thing I just thought of that might be a significant deterrent to faking badges, at a much lesser cost. If USASF put their logo on the badge and someone fakes an ID, they are subject to criminal prosecution - not to mention sanctions/action by USASF against the program and the athlete. I don't think many programs would risk that for a jacket.

 

[TheUltimateFan]

5-6-7-8.....Being a math 'purist' I love the logic and outcomes of the trending method. My concern comes in with implementing something so complex right out the door. Could we sell this to USASF? It involves a lot of change. Maybe it could be approached in phases over a 2-3 year period.

PHASE I

• Implement the ID cards.
• Athletes can compete ONE level up or down. This allows small gyms to compete any athlete on any of three levels (down 1, true, up 1).
• Coaches/athletes work together to determine level to register the athlete.
• 2/3 (3/4?) of the team competing at any competition must be at true to declared level.
• Registrations are managed via the ID request process - no additional overhead for USASF.
• Registration cutoff is somewhere into the season, maybe November, before the 'big' competitions start
• EPs can collect and quickly visually scan the cards, even just by color, going onto the floor. Random checks of photos.
• EPs of larger competitions, where bids and jackets are at stake, also make the most profit. They can pay staff for more rigorous checks.

Simple to implement and most likely 99% effective - IF USASF comes down swiftly and severely on programs caught cheating using fake IDs. AND if the athletes care enough to police themselves and each other - like they did here - it could be near perfect.

PHASE II
During this first season, someone could be building the tracking system to implement Phase II (the trending). Any training and informational materials could be rolled out to the EPs and they could have adequate time to develop their internal procedures and define staffing needs.

I keep going back to gymnastics. They don't have a complex system...simple credentialing, pride (to be declared at your true level) and integrity - that is what they have to keep things in order.

kingston, ACEDAD, CGAcheer - your opinion on how much responsibility USASF would be willing and able to take on or how they would react to these proposals? Not asking you to speak on their behalf, just your opinion based on past experience. Thanks.

 

[King]

5-6-7-8.....Being a math 'purist' I love the logic and outcomes of the trending method. My concern comes in with implementing something so complex right out the door. Could we sell this to USASF? It involves a lot of change. Maybe it could be approached in phases over a 2-3 year period.

PHASE I

• Implement the ID cards.
• Athletes can compete ONE level up or down. This allows small gyms to compete any athlete on any of three levels (down 1, true, up 1).
• Coaches/athletes work together to determine level to register the athlete.
• 2/3 (3/4?) of the team competing at any competition must be at true to declared level.
• Registrations are managed via the ID request process - no additional overhead for USASF.
• Registration cutoff is somewhere into the season, maybe November, before the 'big' competitions start
• EPs can collect and quickly visually scan the cards, even just by color, going onto the floor. Random checks of photos.
• EPs of larger competitions, where bids and jackets are at stake, also make the most profit. They can pay staff for more rigorous checks.

Simple to implement and most likely 99% effective - IF USASF comes down swiftly and severely on programs caught cheating using fake IDs. AND if the athletes care enough to police themselves and each other - like they did here - it could be near perfect.

PHASE II
During this first season, someone could be building the tracking system to implement Phase II (the trending). Any training and informational materials could be rolled out to the EPs and they could have adequate time to develop their internal procedures and define staffing needs.

I keep going back to gymnastics. They don't have a complex system...simple credentialing, pride (to be declared at your true level) and integrity - that is what they have to keep things in order.

kingston, ACEDAD, CGAcheer - your opinion on how much responsibility USASF would be willing and able to take on or how they would react to these proposals? Not asking you to speak on their behalf, just your opinion based on past experience. Thanks.

Until there is a unified scoresheet and universal registration I don't think the ideas are possible. But as far as the math theory it has legs.

 

[TheUltimateFan]

Until there is a unified scoresheet and universal registration I don't think the ideas are possible. But as far as the math theory it has legs.

I'm not drawing the association between the Phase I proposal and the scoresheet. Phase I proposal doesn't include trending, which is where the scoresheet comes into play. Trending and tracking of the scoresheet wouldn't be implemented until Phase II - and only if Phase I didn't resolve the sandebagging issues and the deeper diligence of trending was even found to be necessary.

Phase I also includes registration, without USASF overhead. Registration is accomplished through the ID request process, which is paid for by the athlete or program. USASF gets the file from the vendor - no initial effort or expense to them.

 

[King]

Your assuming vendors wish to give up their information to the USASF.

A unified scoresheet is a prequalifier to let you know when people will be willing to be fully led by the USASF. At the moment even legality enforcement isnt done by the USASF, but by the EPs themselves.

 

[TheUltimateFan]

Your assuming vendors wish to give up their information to the USASF.

A unified scoresheet is a prequalifier to let you know when people will be willing to be fully led by the USASF. At the moment even legality enforcement isnt done by the USASF, but by the EPs themselves.

I am missing where you are bridging these two topics, but I think I know where you are going with this. I don't see any relationship at all between a scoresheet and this process in Phase I. What information would an EP have to "give up" to USASF? Is it because the EP in Phase I would be responsible for screening the IDs and that is where you think they would not want to have accountability to USASF rules and procedures as they relate to this process?

If the issue is with asking the EP to screen IDs, then is it feasible that USASF could have representation at any significant competition (i.e. competitions where bids are awarded)?

USASF applies rulings and penalties and has some authority relative to activity at competitions now, doesn't it? (I'm thinking about USASF's authority to ban teams from competing at Worlds and their 'ownership' of the bid distribution process executed by the EPs today). USASF sanctions for ID violations would be applied at the program level, not to the individual athlete, and the EP would have no hand in that except to report violations. Assuming they agreed to do the screening. If not, then all they would be asked to do would be to allow a USASF official backstage to do the screening.

I'm not sure I agree that a unified scoresheet is the one and only indicator that people and EPs are willing to be led by USASF. I think any step forward in having USASF establish rules to be enforced across EPs accomplishes the same thing. It might be easier to open that door a crack first (by implementing something like this that is easier to manage) rather than try to blast it wide open.

 

[CGAcheer]

5-6-7-8.....Being a math 'purist' I love the logic and outcomes of the trending method. My concern comes in with implementing something so complex right out the door. Could we sell this to USASF? It involves a lot of change. Maybe it could be approached in phases over a 2-3 year period.

PHASE I

• Implement the ID cards.
• Athletes can compete ONE level up or down. This allows small gyms to compete any athlete on any of three levels (down 1, true, up 1).
• Coaches/athletes work together to determine level to register the athlete.
• 2/3 (3/4?) of the team competing at any competition must be at true to declared level.
• Registrations are managed via the ID request process - no additional overhead for USASF.
• Registration cutoff is somewhere into the season, maybe November, before the 'big' competitions start
• EPs can collect and quickly visually scan the cards, even just by color, going onto the floor. Random checks of photos.
• EPs of larger competitions, where bids and jackets are at stake, also make the most profit. They can pay staff for more rigorous checks.

Simple to implement and most likely 99% effective - IF USASF comes down swiftly and severely on programs caught cheating using fake IDs. AND if the athletes care enough to police themselves and each other - like they did here - it could be near perfect.

PHASE II
During this first season, someone could be building the tracking system to implement Phase II (the trending). Any training and informational materials could be rolled out to the EPs and they could have adequate time to develop their internal procedures and define staffing needs.

I keep going back to gymnastics. They don't have a complex system...simple credentialing, pride (to be declared at your true level) and integrity - that is what they have to keep things in order.

kingston, ACEDAD, CGAcheer - your opinion on how much responsibility USASF would be willing and able to take on or how they would react to these proposals? Not asking you to speak on their behalf, just your opinion based on past experience. Thanks.

I don't like the idea of artificially regulating team composition. Team selections are difficult enough as it is, imagine throwing having to track the level of the kids and having to meet quotas- I have this level 5 kid but only have a level 3 team do I need to add two level1 kids to offset. Then as a smaller gym, potentially not even being able to make a team that meets the quotas. If a person gets injured or quits and then it throws off the quota what happens then, do you have to kick off a high level kid or move the team up?

The trending idea let's us choose our teams as normal and then alerts us if there is a potential issue and the system once in place would be able to track all sorts of things, avg progression rate, numbers of kids in levels, age divisions. To get people fully on board with it, tie registration with it, enter your team roster once, put your schedule in and you're done

 

[TheUltimateFan]

I don't like the idea of artificially regulating team composition. Team selections are difficult enough as it is, imagine throwing having to track the level of the kids and having to meet quotas- I have this level 5 kid but only have a level 3 team do I need to add two level1 kids to offset. Then as a smaller gym, potentially not even being able to make a team that meets the quotas. If a person gets injured or quits and then it throws off the quota what happens then, do you have to kick off a high level kid or move the team up?

The trending idea let's us choose our teams as normal and then alerts us if there is a potential issue and the system once in place would be able to track all sorts of things, avg progression rate, numbers of kids in levels, age divisions. To get people fully on board with it, tie registration with it, enter your team roster once, put your schedule in and you're done

There are no quotas - you don't have to 'average out' the skill set to compose a team. 2/3 (or 3/4) of the team has to be registered at the level you are competing, the remaining 1/3 (or 1/4) can be at any level 1 up, 1 down or same. On a Level 3 team you could have 12 level 3s and 6 level 4s. They don't need to be offset by level 1 athletes.

Someone also suggested that you allow athletes to compete 2 levels up or down instead of 1...the premise being that as long as 2/3 or 3/4 (tbd) of the team was made up of athletes true to level, you won't have a significant advatage if the smaller remaining portion of the team is 'stacked'.

 

[TheUltimateFan]

I'm not sure if taking this out of the mainstream thread was perhaps premature. We need thoughtful input like this and the strength in numbers that comes from the backing of a lot of 'customers'. Since moving the thread the 'views' have dropped significantly.

 

[munchkinmom]

As a rec parent, I like this even for us too. Almost all of our comps are epic brands/jambrands, which pretty much means for each rec comp offered, comps are either mixed rec/school/all star or they offer days for both rec & allstar. If a EP hosts a USASF sanctioned event, for every comp that EP hosts every athlete must be USASF registered. This would also go a long way toward unifying cheerleading. We're playing by the same rules, at the same place, I'm ok with having to register. This wouldn't be dissimilar to USA Gymnastics requiring all athletes be members to compete at a sanctioned event.

As far as the barcodes go, all you need to read them is a smartphone with software. The software can be as cheap or expensive as you want, depends on how much functionality you want and who you get to write it.

 

[CGAcheer]

There are no quotas - you don't have to 'average out' the skill set to compose a team. 2/3 (or 3/4) of the team has to be registered at the level you are competing, the remaining 1/3 (or 1/4) can be at any level 1 up, 1 down or same. On a Level 3 team you could have 12 level 3s and 6 level 4s. They don't need to be offset by level 1 athletes.

Someone also suggested that you allow athletes to compete 2 levels up or down instead of 1...the premise being that as long as 2/3 or 3/4 (tbd) of the team was made up of athletes true to level, you won't have a significant advatage if the smaller remaining portion of the team is 'stacked'.

Needing your team to be 2/3 or 3/4 of a certain thing is a quota. What if you only have 10 3's 5 4's and 5 2's. Most gyms would probably compete that combination at level 3 but it wouldn't meet the quota, would you then suggest that they kick off the 2's from the team so that they will meet the quota? Or would they just up the level of the 2's or down the level of the 4. What if your 2's were all your best backspots or flyers. If you do take them off that team then where do you put them, what if they are too old for your other teams what if they throw off the ratios for the rest of your gym, what if it forces you to be large with 21, or if have kids that just don't fit into the puzzle.

That was purposely rambling to show the craziness that it would create

I don't know if you coach, or have been involved with team selections at a gym, but trust me it doesn't need any beuracratic complications
Added to an already difficult process.

The trending idea can catch issues without causing issues

 

[TheUltimateFan]

Needing your team to be 2/3 or 3/4 of a certain thing is a quota. What if you only have 10 3's 5 4's and 5 2's. Most gyms would probably compete that combination at level 3 but it wouldn't meet the quota, would you then suggest that they kick off the 2's from the team so that they will meet the quota? Or would they just up the level of the 2's or down the level of the 4. What if your 2's were all your best backspots or flyers. If you do take them off that team then where do you put them, what if they are too old for your other teams what if they throw off the ratios for the rest of your gym, what if it forces you to be large with 21, or if have kids that just don't fit into the puzzle.

That was purposely rambling to show the craziness that it would create

I don't know if you coach, or have been involved with team selections at a gym, but trust me it doesn't need any beuracratic complications
Added to an already difficult process.

The trending idea can catch issues without causing issues

This issue was raised in the earlier thread and the response (from several small gyms) was that you could create a team of 15, you don't necessarily have to have the maximum number of participants to be successful. The second response was to question whether you should be fielding a team at a certain level if you don't have enough people to meet the minimum requirements. Don't shoot the messenger, reiterating what was already discussed. This is one of the reasons I think moving this topic was a mistake.

Again, the phased approach was offered as something that could be implemented for the short term, while the larger effort required to roll out the trending method was being worked on. If we can't create something executable in a reasonable amount of time with a minimal amount of effort and expense, the change will either die because:

• nobody will commit to deliver the effort required to implement the change or
• it will die because it can't be implemented within a reasonable time frame.

Historically, that's why every good idea proposed here has failed to come to fruition unless USASF themselves decided to own it.

 

[notimeforthat]

@TheUlitmateFan I apploud you for actually DOING something about your concerns instead of just complaining about it!!
just wanted you to know you are appreciated!!

 

[CGAcheer]

This issue was raised in the earlier thread and the response (from several small gyms) was that you could create a team of 15, you don't necessarily have to have the maximum number of participants to be successful. The second response was to question whether you should be fielding a team at a certain level if you don't have enough people to meet the minimum requirements. Don't shoot the messenger, reiterating what was already discussed. This is one of the reasons I think moving this topic was a mistake.

Again, the phased approach was offered as something that could be implemented for the short term, while the larger effort required to roll out the trending method was being worked on. If we can't create something executable in a reasonable amount of time with a minimal amount of effort and expense, the change will either die because:

• nobody will commit to deliver the effort required to implement the change or
• it will die because it can't be implemented within a reasonable time frame.

Historically, that's why every good idea proposed here has failed to come to fruition unless USASF themselves decided to own it.

The trending would be easier to implement, the system is basically already there, just has to be centralized. Then you could just track for a year or two and have real measurable and actionable information to move forward with.

If you centralize the registration process eps and gym owners would get on board because it would simplify their lives and save on costs, then that same registration can track the trends

 

[5-6-7-8]

5-6-7-8.....Being a math 'purist' I love the logic and outcomes of the trending method. My concern comes in with implementing something so complex right out the door. Could we sell this to USASF? It involves a lot of change. Maybe it could be approached in phases over a 2-3 year period.

PHASE I

• Implement the ID cards.
• Athletes can compete ONE level up or down. This allows small gyms to compete any athlete on any of three levels (down 1, true, up 1).
• Coaches/athletes work together to determine level to register the athlete.
• 2/3 (3/4?) of the team competing at any competition must be at true to declared level.
• Registrations are managed via the ID request process - no additional overhead for USASF.
• Registration cutoff is somewhere into the season, maybe November, before the 'big' competitions start
• EPs can collect and quickly visually scan the cards, even just by color, going onto the floor. Random checks of photos.
• EPs of larger competitions, where bids and jackets are at stake, also make the most profit. They can pay staff for more rigorous checks.

Simple to implement and most likely 99% effective - IF USASF comes down swiftly and severely on programs caught cheating using fake IDs. AND if the athletes care enough to police themselves and each other - like they did here - it could be near perfect.

PHASE II
During this first season, someone could be building the tracking system to implement Phase II (the trending). Any training and informational materials could be rolled out to the EPs and they could have adequate time to develop their internal procedures and define staffing needs.

I keep going back to gymnastics. They don't have a complex system...simple credentialing, pride (to be declared at your true level) and integrity - that is what they have to keep things in order.

kingston, ACEDAD, CGAcheer - your opinion on how much responsibility USASF would be willing and able to take on or how they would react to these proposals? Not asking you to speak on their behalf, just your opinion based on past experience. Thanks.

Sorry, keep meaning to come reply to this, but finally getting a few seconds to actually sit and think.

I like the ID card idea, I really do. I don't think it is so far out there to verify athletes competing on the floor.

But the reason I started thinking of the "trending" idea was for simplicity in the outset. Like CGAcheer mentioned, I was trying to eliminate the need for rules of team composition from the outset and look more for anomalies in team registrations. I definitely understand and sympathize with the need for ultimate flexibility in team composition (small gyms making the best of the athletes that walk through the door, last minute illnesses / injuries, etc.) Though I guess to contradict myself, even with the trending method, we need to define what would create an anomaly, which would maybe come to team composition at some point. Though to further contradict myself, once a team has competed once or twice, there would be a pattern for someone to make a decision.

The trending method will still need some form of ID by athlete to be enforceable (otherwise, gyms will just register set A of athletes and compete with set B.) But maybe the second phase would be to get to some form of true athlete credentialing.

The trending method could largely be done behind the scenes, provided that EPs are willing to "create" their event in the USASF database, and gyms are willing to register teams to those events using the USASF database. (To me, this is simple, it seems that it would be beneficial to both EPs and Gyms to streamline the registration process.) The analysis can then be done behind the scenes and only in the event of an anomaly would a person become involved. (And I am guessing that the anomalies would be a very small percentage.)

Enforcement at the outset could just be random checks of athletes at check in (this is where some form of photo registration card would be needed) to confirm that those registered are the ones competing.