All-Star Ways To Eliminate Sandbagging

[TheUltimateFan]

I love the idea of a percentage of the athletes must be the level they are competing at. However coaching at a extremely small gym I see some issues with the only being allowed to cross up or down one level. Say we have a few athletes reach level 5 before anyone else but don't have the ability to yield a team higher then level 3, where does that leave the 1 or 2 athletes who have progressed extremely fast?

They could register as level 4. They could compete Level 3 while you were growing. If you established a level 4 or level 5 team partway through the season, they would be eligible for either of those teams.

Again, remember that if 2/3 of the team must be true Level 3's, you aren't given an unreasonable advantage by doing this.

 

[newcheerdad]

I've pushed this idea in numerous threads in the past, but I'll reiterate here.

A gym credentials athletes at a level by the start of your first competition. Teams must contain a majority (50.01 percent or more) of athletes credentialed at the level you're competing at. You can move an athlete up or down one level, one time, during the competition season.

Crossovers would be limited to 2 levels up/down at any time. (i.e., no level 5 athletes on a level 2 team, no level 4/5 athletes on a level 1 team) That would allow you to still move some athletes from your higher level team down to lower level teams if need be, but maintaining the integrity of the team.

The policy outlined above would allow you flexibility to use subs or crossovers, or to move up an entire team up/down a level if skills changed during the year.

It would prevent teams from dropping down levels en masse for a specific competition, and would encourage skill mastery and appropriate assessment of a team's skill level when putting together a team. Yes, you could credential level-5 capable athletes as a level 3 team, but A.) that can happen today and B.) you run the risk of running off those athletes if there are other teams that would take them.

 

[TheUltimateFan]

GreatWhite92, would you mind taking a moment to lay out your proposal like this example below, and add the pros and cons you and others have raised? It helps to see the bigger picture in one spot. Your suggestion is triggering more dialogue, which is what we need to find the best solution. It could end up being some blend of these two, if we can see them side-by-side...

OK, so program-specific battering aside, where do we stand with a proposed solution?

• Athlete Registration. Somewhere early in the season (Sept-Oct-Nov?), athletes are registered with USASF, declaring their skill level as part of registration.
• From that point, an athlete can compete only up or down ONE level.
• 2/3 of any team registered for a competition must be on record with USASF as being AT the level the team registers. The other 1/3 can be athletes that are eligible at that level, based on the up 1/down 1 rule. NO exceptions allowed. (e.g. a team that registers as level 3 must have 2/3 of the athletes registered as Level 3 , may have 1/3 of the athletes on the team that are registered as Level 2 or Level 4)
• Athletes who increase their skills a full level within any season are accomodated by the 'up 1' condition.
• USASF programs can choose not to participate in competitions where the rules are not adhered to by non-USASF programs. There is an opportunity for any EP to choose to enforce the USASF standard.
• Small gyms are accomodated both by the +1/-1 ruling and by the fact that a team that doesn't have the maximum number of participants can be successful.

So now, start tearing this apart. If you work through all of the possible challenges here that could be raised AT USASF, you walk in the door with the strongest case possible.

 

[TheUltimateFan]

I've pushed this idea in numerous threads in the past, but I'll reiterate here.

A gym credentials athletes at a level by the start of your first competition. Teams must contain a majority (50.01 percent or more) of athletes credentialed at the level you're competing at. You can move an athlete up or down one level, one time, during the competition season.

Crossovers would be limited to 2 levels up/down at any time. (i.e., no level 5 athletes on a level 2 team, no level 4/5 athletes on a level 1 team) That would allow you to still move some athletes from your higher level team down to lower level teams if need be, but maintaining the integrity of the team.

The policy outlined above would allow you flexibility to use subs or crossovers, or to move up an entire team up/down a level if skills changed during the year.

It would prevent teams from dropping down levels en masse for a specific competition, and would encourage skill mastery and appropriate assessment of a team's skill level when putting together a team. Yes, you could credential level-5 capable athletes as a level 3 team, but A.) that can happen today and B.) you run the risk of running off those athletes if there are other teams that would take them.

In the original thread we discussed the problem of using a 50% figure. You could load the team with higher level athletes up to the 49.9 % mark. But you still would only need one athlete that is registered at the true competing level to hit in each skill and meet the majority requirement on the scoresheet. This is why we went to 2/3 and 1/3

 

[TheUltimateFan]

Thats the main reason I don't like that rule...i could foresee small gyms not being able to keep their higher level athletes because they cant compete there, they dont want to wait till everyone else in the gym catches up to be able to compete..

I guess I am not understanding what you are saying. Are you saying they do have a level 5 team with only those handful of Level 5 skills and the rest of the team is composed of athletes competing up two levels to make that happen? Believe me, we have been there. We understand the pain and the frustration. But I am not sure how having a level 5 team with a minority of level 5 cheerleaders will ever help you. If they never win, odds are they will leave anyway. That's reality.

Have I totally missed your point?

 

[newcheerdad]

In the original thread we discussed the problem of using a 50% figure. You could load the team with higher level athletes up to the 49.9 % mark. But you still would only need one athlete that is registered at the true competing level to hit in each skill and meet the majority requirement on the scoresheet. This is why we went to 2/3 and 1/3

I don't object to the number. But keep in mind that any rule like this is disproportionately harder on small gyms, so I think there has to be some kind of reasonable concession. The big purpose of any sandbagging rule should be to eliminate the "level 4 team dropping to level 2 for competition (x)" phenomenon; anything else is really a bonus.

 

[GreatWhite92]

• Athlete Credentialing Sept./October...maybe November.
• Athletes can not be credentialed more than one level lower than the year before. (I think they shouldnt be able to move down at all but children do lose skills).
• Teams may be composed of any level athlete within their age category, (Youth, Junior, Senior..etc.)
• The level of the team will be decided by taking the average of the athletes level credentials.
• Level will be decided by rounding up or down. Example 2.1-2.4 can compete lvl 2 and up, 2.5-2.9 can compete lvl 3 and up.
• A team may choose to compete up levels but may not choose to compete down a level, once the credentialed level has been decided.
• Replacements: All replacements must be at the same level of the athlete being replaced to ensure the average staying the same. If the athlete is a higher or lower level, you acknowledge the fact that your credential level may change due to the average going up or down.
• If an injury happens at a competition, you may choose to substitute the athlete with any level athlete. If you choose to keep this athlete on the team, their credentialed level will be averaged in at the next competition.
• Upon entering a USASF competition, exact athletes must be registered so level requirements can be checked. If you need a replacement, you must contact the EP prior to the competition to change out the athletes registration.
• All athletes must have a USASF id card labeled with athlete's picture, age, and credential level upon entering a competition. Ages and credential levels will be checked prior to competition; however, if another teams coach wants to question that your athletes are competing at the right age and level, the ID cards must be shown to prove eligibility.

Pros: Small gyms may use all their athletes no matter what level to make complete teams.
Placing Higher level athletes on lower level teams will almost for sure make the level credential of the team go up.
example: placing 4 lvl 5 athletes on a team of level two athletes will automatically make that teams level credential go up to level 3.
Cons: It is possible to cheat when it comes to athlete credentialing.
Some averages can be manipulated...Say a team full of lvl 5 athletes want to compete level 4...all they must do is add 3 level 1 athletes to bring the average down to level 4...however, I don't foresee that being common due to the fact that 3 level 1 athletes on a level 4 team isn't very helpful.
This is open for suggestions on how to make it better.
Also would love to hear some more pros and cons...

 

[Deleted member 15]

Let's look at this mathematically, using 18 athletes. A coach places 8 declared level 5 athletes with 10 declared level 4 athletes on one team. Your average allows you to compete level 4. But you have 8 level 5 athletes that can hit the scoresheet in each category. That means you only need one of your level 4 athletes that can hit each individual skill to be able to max out the scoresheet. And yet the ones 'doing the maxing' are almost exclusively defined level 5 athletes. Unless I am seeing this wrong, it puts us back where we started.

The 9 will put you in the highest range, but won't max you out.

 

[GreatWhite92]

I guess I am not understanding what you are saying. Are you saying they do have a level 5 team with only those handful of Level 5 skills and the rest of the team is composed of athletes competing up two levels to make that happen? Believe me, we have been there. We understand the pain and the frustration. But I am not sure how having a level 5 team with a minority of level 5 cheerleaders will ever help you. If they never win, odds are they will leave anyway. That's reality.

Have I totally missed your point?

If you only have enough level appropriate athletes to compete lvl 3...then where does that leave the athletes that are credentialed as lvl 5. If they want to compete on the lvl 3 team...they would not be able to because it is more than one level below their credentialing. Coaches could choose to credential them as lvl 4, but if they are really level 5 than thats just as bad as cheating in my eyes. If you take the average, you can still have a team full of some level 2, most level 3, and a few level 5 compete at level 3 because the average would allow for it. If you have a team of 16 lvl 3 athletes and 4 lvl 5 athletes, your average would still be 3.4 allowing you to compete as a level 3 team.

 

[TheUltimateFan]

If you only have enough level appropriate athletes to compete lvl 3...then where does that leave the athletes that are credentialed as lvl 5. If they want to compete on the lvl 3 team...they would not be able to because it is more than one level below their credentialing. Coaches could choose to credential them as lvl 4, but if they are really level 5 than thats just as bad as cheating in my eyes. If you take the average, you can still have a team full of some level 2, most level 3, and a few level 5 compete at level 3 because the average would allow for it. If you have a team of 16 lvl 3 athletes and 4 lvl 5 athletes, your average would still be 3.4 allowing you to compete as a level 3 team.

Sorry, I thought I answered this but I realize I was answering it relative to the original proposal. This is a problem under the situation you stated here where you are averaging, but if you went by the first proposal (2/3-1/3) they could be registered as level 4 and compete either up to Level 5 or down to Level 3, as long as the number of athletes doing this didn't exceed the 1/3 of the team that is allowed to be not at true level.

I don't know how it could be resolved if you used the averaging method.

 

[TheUltimateFan]

The 9 will put you in the highest range, but won't max you out.

What is required to max out? I don't know the scoresheet and doubt I will ever learn it ;)

 

[TheUltimateFan]

I don't object to the number. But keep in mind that any rule like this is disproportionately harder on small gyms, so I think there has to be some kind of reasonable concession. The big purpose of any sandbagging rule should be to eliminate the "level 4 team dropping to level 2 for competition (x)" phenomenon; anything else is really a bonus.

We did respond to the little gym problems in the original summary proposal from the L2 thread, copied above. I do have some insight into those challenges but I clearly don't have all of the answers myself. Please pose other small gym issues we may have missed in that summary of the feedback/answers from the earlier posters in the other thread.

 

[GreatWhite92]

Sorry, I thought I answered this but I realize I was answering it relative to the original proposal. This is a problem under the situation you stated here where you are averaging, but if you went by the first proposal (2/3-1/3) they could be registered as level 4 and compete either up to Level 5 or down to Level 3, as long as the number of athletes doing this didn't exceed the 1/3 of the team that is allowed to be not at true level.

I don't know how it could be resolved if you used the averaging method.

My only problem is a level 5 athlete credentialing as a level 4 athlete. If they have the level 5 skills then they should be credentialed as level 5. What keeps a coach from credentialing all her level 5 athletes as level 2 athletes for the season just to win?

You can place up to 4 lvl 5 athletes on a team full of lvl 3 athletes with out the average bumping you up to lvl 4.

ETA: This is using a small team of 20 athletes.

 

[Deleted member 15]

What is required to max out? I don't know the scoresheet and doubt I will ever learn it ;)

It's not really stated, but it's closer to double+1 than half+1.

 

[TheUltimateFan]

My only problem is a level 5 athlete credentialing as a level 4 athlete. If they have the level 5 skills then they should be credentialed as level 5. What keeps a coach from credentialing all her level 5 athletes as level 2 athletes for the season just to win?

You can place up to 4 lvl 5 athletes on a team full of lvl 3 athletes with out the average bumping you up to lvl 4.

ETA: This is using a small team of 20 athletes.

Theoretically that could happen. But we are talking about athletes who are proud to be where they have pushed themselves and coaches that are proud to have helped bring them there. If USASF is publishing a list of athlete credentials do we really think that many athletes would allow themselves to be publicly labeled at two or more levels below what they have achieved? I don't think so, maybe I am wrong. But I do know that even if they did, someone, somewhere would call them out. Probably on this board. ;)

And it contradicts the other scenario raised. If they declare at Level 3 and are Level 5, they won't be able to compete at Level 5. Then would they leave the gym as predicted?