All-Star Ways To Eliminate Sandbagging

[TheUltimateFan]

I'm saying they could submit them directly if USASF claimed not to have the manpower to manage this process, not that this is the only option. Ideally this would be linked to an overall athlete registration process and validation as developed by USASF (birth certificates, etc.) There is no check of birthdates here but since all athletes are submitted on one spreadsheet using the same name twice wouldn't work.

I'm sure there are other creative opportunities to cheat the system. The potential deterrents are what was mentioned earlier; swift and severe penalties by USASF for violations - such as suspending the program from competitions for the season, Worlds, whatever. And it's been made clear here that people are no longer afraid to speak out and expose programs that cheat.

 

[Cheer_Explosion_Coach]

In response to why the USASF is reluctant to making drastic rules / changes. I think the USASF's reluctance to make big changes too fast comes from the fact that people fear change. EP's aren't on board with new policies bc new policies might hurt their pocket book. What we have to remember is that competitive (all star if you must) cheerleading is only in it's infancy. We are so used to pushing the envelope with choreography and skills every year that we feel like we are changing and the governing body is standing still. I think everyone needs to keep making suggestions and coming up with solutions, but remember slow and steady wins the race. The USASF will one day have a standardized score sheet, they will have certified judges who are trained on that scoresheet, they will find a way to eliminate cheating. Maybe not tomorrow, or next year, but I would say in the near future. Until then, let's keep doing our part so they can one day do their part. And just my opinion, but I think many of the USASF staff (regional directors, state directors) and such agree with most of the changes that are presented on the boards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Aussiekat]

The other thread on crossovers made me wonder whether trending would/could address sandbagging worlds teams to get paid bids? They're all senior level 5 athletes crossing to senior level 5 teams to secure those bids...

 

[TheUltimateFan]

The other thread on crossovers made me wonder whether trending would/could address sandbagging worlds teams to get paid bids? They're all senior level 5 athletes crossing to senior level 5 teams to secure those bids...

I'm not the expert, 5-6-7-8 laid this out. But if I understand how it works, the fact that those athletes were crossing teams and even programs would be caught by the trending/tracking system. I don't think it will directly prevent or solve this particular issue, but it would give USASF a means of tracking the athletes to make sure they don't violate whatever rule (if any) they actually put in place to prevent this.

 

[5-6-7-8]

If a rule can be developed regarding the level 5 bid issue, then I would think the trending could catch it.

The basics of trending is just gathering the data of athletes competing for teams/levels. Once the data is collected, that data can be analyzed any way we need to.

 

[5-6-7-8]

I don't know why I am spending so much time on this, but it certainly is interesting and fun to research. :)

So I was reading the "Technology Task Force" notes on the USASF website USASF.NET and it looks like some of this has been discussed (at least the actual athlete registration part.) Just not sure where that process is (and was the most recent meeting in January 2011 or 2012.)

And in further reading of other issues coming to light here on the boards, it seems that athlete registration AND event registration (basically the assignment of registered athletes to gyms and teams) would be at least a first step in being able to track and identify other issues beyond the sandbagging:

• gym releases
• tracking bids offered
• tracking athletes who are registered for bids and compete with said bid
• age issues
• once some form of universal scoring is developed, results and score tracking. I would even add to that, the ability to track results from each judge to be able to monitor judging and provide more accountability for judges.)

 

[CD FOREVER AND EVA!]

so i just have to put this out there as both a former gym owner and a coach ... my daughter was on "one" of those teams mentioned on the other blog regarding Level 2 teams. She was 7 had a round off bhs tuck and was on a youth 2. Being smaller she wasn't flexible enough and became a base. Her basing was great. But the gym in its quest to win decided to bump her down to a Mini 1 teams and move girls from the Jr 5 team to the youth team.

As a parent I was disapointed she was placed on another team by a double competitor that clearly was beyond a level 2 cheerleader. I think it definite needs to be addressed somehow needs to be addressed.

As a gym owner of a small gym, my level 2 teams were true level 2 teams. We tried to compete at the highest level possible. We used cross overs to fill spots (being a small gym) when needed. But the majority of any team was with in the level we competed.

Cudos to those trying to change and make this fairer!!!!

 

[viralscorp]

I think a trend analysis is the easiest and most effective proposal I've read here. Most obviously, it will allow a computer program to flag anything deemed inappropriate (and weed out those of us who follow the rules), and an EP must subject those flags to human review.

The suggested difficulties for small gyms can be easily taken care of by trend analysis. It seems that we're not really talking about sandbagging at the first competitions of the year... by the time NCA, Cheersport, etc. roll around, teams have a competition record. So Susie is a true level 5 athlete and is credentialed as such... but she has competing at level 3 all year. One more competition at level 3 is not a big deal... it's her choice to stay at the gym, the coaches' choice to have her on the team, etc., etc. Maybe Susie is needed to cross down to level 2 because of an injury right before this event... she has been competing at level 3 all year and of course it's in any coach's best interest to take their best athlete to fill the spot. This is already addressed by having Susie's 'individual' flag not raise a 'team' flag because the team is still mostly level 2 athletes.

So then we just have to consider applying this standard meta-analysis to early competitions for which there is no record. (This is assuming a USASF requirement to register all teams before competing - at any time of year.) Simply put, if Small Gym A has never registered a level 4 or 5 team with the USASF, then Susie will draw no flags. . Granted, Big GYM B can just wait to "create" a team and register it with the USASF, but at these early competitions, I don't think anybody really cares. If they're not going to compete their athletes at level 5 until they get to a major event, I don't think their parents or their athletes would be very impressed, and it would certainly hurt them (no competitive level 5 experience, no idea of how your routine will go over with the judges, etc.)

I think having a trend analysis also solves the previous discussion of credentialing athletes at their true level. If you want to credential your whole "Senior 4" team as level 2 athletes, but they compete at level 4 all season, then dropping down to level 2 will certainly and rightfully trigger some huge 'team' flags. Whether you credential your athletes properly or not will only really have an impact on those first few competitions.

 

[viralscorp]

I waited too long to add this, but if we are expecting the USASF to actually follow through with the athlete credentialing system, then EPs will need to have access to some big central database anyways... this trend analysis proposal isn't asking for much in terms of real, physical infrastructure.

 

[5-6-7-8]

I waited too long to add this, but if we are expecting the USASF to actually follow through with the athlete credentialing system, then EPs will need to have access to some big central database anyways... this trend analysis proposal isn't asking for much in terms of real, physical infrastructure.

Yes I think any system could easily allow access to EPs for event registrations.

I think your other post summarized the trending method well.

Now reading all of the other threads highlighting current issues, I think I e of the first things that needs to happen is establishing actual consequences. It seems that even though there are "rules" out there, they are rarely enforced and the penalties when actually administered are merely a slap on the wrist.

I love the trending idea because it makes identifying infractions a lot simpler, but without a governing body that has the time and resources to actually enforce the rules, it won't help much.

Even then, I think starting the data collection part as soon as possible will provide valuable insight into this and many other issues.

 

[SarahS]

so i just have to put this out there as both a former gym owner and a coach ... my daughter was on "one" of those teams mentioned on the other blog regarding Level 2 teams. She was 7 had a round off bhs tuck and was on a youth 2. Being smaller she wasn't flexible enough and became a base. Her basing was great. But the gym in its quest to win decided to bump her down to a Mini 1 teams and move girls from the Jr 5 team to the youth team.

As a parent I was disapointed she was placed on another team by a double competitor that clearly was beyond a level 2 cheerleader. I think it definite needs to be addressed somehow needs to be addressed.

As a gym owner of a small gym, my level 2 teams were true level 2 teams. We tried to compete at the highest level possible. We used cross overs to fill spots (being a small gym) when needed. But the majority of any team was with in the level we competed.

Cudos to those trying to change and make this fairer!!!!

So... I just have to ask (and you don't have to answer, obviously) but are you planning on going back to the same gym next year? We keep hearing that, basically "the market will take care of this" in that parents who are disappointed in the actions of the gym will take their children elsewhere, making cheating like this less profitable in the long run. So I wonder, here, in a concrete example of this totally-legal-yet-to-lots-of-people-ethically-questionable practice, if the "market" will actually respond in a predictable way. Again, you don't have to answer - I'm just curious ;)

 

[MomOf2ThatsMe]

So, on the subject of sandbagging... how does everyone feel about gyms that have multiple members of their level 5 teams cross over to their open 5?

 

[viralscorp]

So, on the subject of sandbagging... how does everyone feel about gyms that have multiple members of their level 5 teams cross over to their open 5?

I think this situation can be dealt with by the trending system. The problem is just setting absolute numbers, qualifications, and consequences (as discussed in the Worlds bids thread). If we say, for example, that X number of athletes who already have a Worlds bid with Team A competing with Team B make Team B ineligible for a bid, then that is simple enough to add to the system. What is X? How do we decide?

More importantly, how do we go about the following:
1) Establishing appropriate restrictions (i.e. absolute definitions for everything)?
2) Convincing gym owners and EPs that this system improves the sport? (And that it is also in everyone's best interest to eliminate the unethical practices we hear about?)
3) Convincing the USASF to adopt the system?
4) Enforcing consequences and establishing even bigger consequences for those who refuse to enforce them?

 

[CD FOREVER AND EVA!]

So... I just have to ask (and you don't have to answer, obviously) but are you planning on going back to the same gym next year? We keep hearing that, basically "the market will take care of this" in that parents who are disappointed in the actions of the gym will take their children elsewhere, making cheating like this less profitable in the long run. So I wonder, here, in a concrete example of this totally-legal-yet-to-lots-of-people-ethically-questionable practice, if the "market" will actually respond in a predictable way. Again, you don't have to answer - I'm just curious ;)

ACTUALLY I MOVED 3000 MILES AWAY LOL SO WE WON'T BE GOING THERE ... WE WILL HOWEVER BE CHEERING AT EITHER CHEER FORCE SD OR CALI SD ... BOTH GREAT GYMS AND I NEED TO SEE WHAT TEAMS/SCHEDULES ARE FOR NEXT SEASON TO MAKE A EDUCATED DECISION ...

 

[5-6-7-8]

I think this situation can be dealt with by the trending system. The problem is just setting absolute numbers, qualifications, and consequences (as discussed in the Worlds bids thread). If we say, for example, that X number of athletes who already have a Worlds bid with Team A competing with Team B make Team B ineligible for a bid, then that is simple enough to add to the system. What is X? How do we decide?

More importantly, how do we go about the following:
1) Establishing appropriate restrictions (i.e. absolute definitions for everything)?
2) Convincing gym owners and EPs that this system improves the sport? (And that it is also in everyone's best interest to eliminate the unethical practices we hear about?)
3) Convincing the USASF to adopt the system?
4) Enforcing consequences and establishing even bigger consequences for those who refuse to enforce them?

Exactly what needs to happen! I wish I knew the answer to any one of those 4! I think in theory, most would agree with the fact it is in everyone's best interest to eliminate the unethical practices, but most of the decisions made to date on this are based on money (more money for the gym, more money for the EPs.) And sadly, there are probably enough parents who would rather turn the other cheek on a program that might not be making the most ethical of choices than go to little honest gym down the road who doesn't win as much. Just like there are enough gym owners who benefit from any unethical stuff going on with EPs to "boybott" those EPs (I realize that is another issue completely, but I think it is safe to say that some EPs are not exactly innocent here either).

I guess the first step is for USASF to decide definitively if it is going to become a true governing body of this sport.