All-Star Well Now What Are We Are We Supposed To Talk About.

[UCFKnights07]

I get the point but I don't like it. Except for in IO5, the US and Canada were the only two countries affected by the rule, everyone else automatically made it to finals. I like the idea of top 10 and then top 3 from each country like has been often suggested. The countries with three or less teams trying to grow the sport will still get into finals.

If tumbling is really the issue, why didn't more teams opt for the NT divisions?

they probably will over time now that there is a NT division at worlds. With this being its first year, im curious to see just how much it grows come next worlds.

 

[XtremeWpg]

The other issue lies with the fact that the sheer cost for teams who aren't from the USA or Canada to get to worlds is astronomical. So of course you get less representation from countries where the trip to Florida for, likely a week to adjust to time zones etc is going to be thousands of dollars more.

This is why I'm big into the idea of top 10 plus however many per country, unless the 3 per country rule is satisfied by 3 teams in the top 10. The cost for these teams to haul their cookies to Florida annually is crazy town.

This is also likely why most sports have a world championship that travels to different places annually. Then everyone shares the financial burden.

 

[oncecoolcoachnowmom]

I can see both sides in the argument, and being Canadian I tend to see it from the international side but with ICU cheer growing and the addition of the open and NT divisions, the need for the 3 per country is slowly going away. ICU cheer ensures that the best of a country is represented, just look at the results for Premier AG and Coed. Other countries are developing and hungry to represent at a world stage. I was so impressed with what I saw last week.

The new divisions have levelled the playing field a bit more for the international teams and this was apparent in the final scores. International teams are getting there and I think in another 5-10yrs there won’t be the need to have rules like this. In the meantime, I can understand why they’re there. The creation of more Open divisions is an opportunity for teams who want that top 10 finalist regardless of geography. The IO divisions allow the other counties to develop. Eventually I’d like to see the need to eliminate geography and have it be top 10 knowing it will be diverse with representation from around the world.

If we look at it as long term development it makes sense but the short term can be frustrating. It’s like a sports league with tier 1 and tier 2 teams. If you want the entire league to be tier 1 you have to develop the players and the have some rules in place to get there. International teams don’t have the same disposable income that the US teams have (and CDN teams for that matter) and until Int’l teams can get the support in their own countries and the training and facilities that they need it will take time. Just look at the development of the Int’l teams since the officials recognition from the IOC. Counties have stepped it up and giving the North American teams a run for their money. It’ll get there.

YES. That was probably the most interesting part of the weekend for me. Canadian programs certainly are not letting American teams just "phone it in" and be mediocre. They've caught up and are even surpassing us in some divisions. Ex: I was really impressed by FLYERS AND ACE IN NT. They really gave Lady Lux a run for their money this weekend (I think LL was in 2nd behind one of them at one point.) I was also really impressed by Smallfin Sharks this past weekend.

 

[BlueCat]

The other issue lies with the fact that the sheer cost for teams who aren't from the USA or Canada to get to worlds is astronomical. So of course you get less representation from countries where the trip to Florida for, likely a week to adjust to time zones etc is going to be thousands of dollars more.

This is why I'm big into the idea of top 10 plus however many per country, unless the 3 per country rule is satisfied by 3 teams in the top 10. The cost for these teams to haul their cookies to Florida annually is crazy town.

This is also likely why most sports have a world championship that travels to different places annually. Then everyone shares the financial burden.

I am certainly aware that, generally, it costs more for non-US teams to attend than US teams. (I'm not sure that California AS has cheaper flights than Jamaica, but I get the general point.). I would be in favor of the IASF coming up with ways to offset the costs of the longest-traveling teams in some way. However, I don't think the results of the event should be skewed towards those who paid more to travel there. (Should Alaska Elite get a point bonus over Top Gun Orlando?). I believe that once the event starts, the only thing that should matter and impact who wins/makes finals should be the routines and scores.

We were specifically told in 2004 that the event was going to rotate every year - that was part of the attraction and the initial support from us. At minimum, it could alternate between Disney parks. Even bouncing between Disney World and Disney Land would be an improvement, IMO.

 

[Sterling von Shimmer]

I so much want Worlds to be a great event, but it can be so disappointing at times.

What do you guys think of the 3-per-country rule at USASF/IASF Worlds? (Geography playing a role in determining who advances to finals). (NOT whether you think it was implemented correctly, just whether it should be a thing in the first place.)

No. If the Olympics don’t get it, we don’t either. We don’t need special rules if we’re going to be taken seriously. Everyone knows what the standards to win are and everyone is free to reach them. This is a business-related “make sure as many people as possible go home happy so they’ll come back with money next year” rule, not a competitive one.

 

[XtremeWpg]

I am certainly aware that, generally, it costs more for non-US teams to attend than US teams. (I'm not sure that California AS has cheaper flights than Jamaica, but I get the general point.). I would be in favor of the IASF coming up with ways to offset the costs of the longest-traveling teams in some way. However, I don't think the results of the event should be skewed towards those who paid more to travel there. (Should Alaska Elite get a point bonus over Top Gun Orlando?). I believe that once the event starts, the only thing that should matter and impact who wins/makes finals should be the routines and scores.

We were specifically told in 2004 that the event was going to rotate every year - that was part of the attraction and the initial support from us. At minimum, it could alternate between Disney parks. Even bouncing between Disney World and Disney Land would be an improvement, IMO.

I'm not saying it should be like that, but I am saying that without the three per country rule as it currently exists, you'll be hard pressed to get teams to travel at a cost of 5 grand a person when they'd be guaranteed one run.

This is also why there are USASF divisions and IASF divisions. USASF doesn't do 3 per country, and if you want to participate in that set up, you're more than welcome to put a team into Senior Open.

This sport simply isn't ready for Olympic level standards and concepts. We cannot even settle on a scoring system that is consistent for the entire year. We have a governing body that seems to not even follow it's own rules.

I also cannot think of a single sport where every single athlete/program/official involved is in complete agreement on how things are run. These decisions are being made for a reason, whether we know the reason or not.

But I will say, it is a uniquely American mentality that this should be about winning against the best as opposed to thinking of it from an international perspective and growth. This sport is an infant. It has not even begun to scratch the surface of stable. We have a monopoly corporation in charge of the entire thing. Find me another Olympic sport that is run this way.

We cannot continue to compare cheerleading to other sports, because at this point, there are simply too many differences and anomalies for us to be like everyone else.

 

[XtremeWpg]

No. If the Olympics don’t get it, we don’t either. We don’t need special rules if we’re going to be taken seriously. Everyone knows what the standards to win are and everyone is free to reach them. This is a business-related “make sure as many people as possible go home happy so they’ll come back with money next year” rule, not a competitive one.

We aren't like anything in the Olympics though. How many Olympic sports have their qualifiers run by a private company, judged on a completely different system for qualifying.

Cheerleading isn't like other sports, we can't pretend that it is.

 

[Sterling von Shimmer]

We aren't like anything in the Olympics though. How many Olympic sports have their qualifiers run by a private company, judged on a completely different system for qualifying.

Cheerleading isn't like other sports, we can't pretend that it is.

Even if you take that comparison away though, this mode of running things doesn’t necessarily honour the best athletes. Which is why we’re all there.

Like I said: everyone is aware of the skills it takes to win. No one is at a disadvantage that way. True, cheer is more popular in some countries than others, but that doesn’t stop anyone from training enough to hang with the top 5 teams, wherever they’re from. There’s no need to decide who gets to finals based on geography. That has nothing to do with anything and feels hollow and disingenuous to me.

 

[Cheeranswers]

I so much want Worlds to be a great event, but it can be so disappointing at times.

What do you guys think of the 3-per-country rule at USASF/IASF Worlds? (Geography playing a role in determining who advances to finals). (NOT whether you think it was implemented correctly, just whether it should be a thing in the first place.)

hate it. And this is coming from someone who was directly impacted by it (and burned a few times) when I cheered. There was a team that finished 5th overall in their division and didn’t make it to day 2, where as the team that got 32nd in that division, did. It’s crazy. I do understand how expensive it is to travel across the world to compete for 1 day, but I don’t think it’s fair that they get top 10 in the world automatically. I don’t have a solution to offer up however. I just hope it changes

 

[XtremeWpg]

hate it. And this is coming from someone who was directly impacted by it (and burned a few times) when I cheered. There was a team that finished 5th overall in their division and didn’t make it to day 2, where as the team that got 32nd in that division, did. It’s crazy. I do understand how expensive it is to travel across the world to compete for 1 day, but I don’t think it’s fair that they get top 10 in the world automatically. I don’t have a solution to offer up however. I just hope it changes

There's several solutions like entering a USASF Senior Open division, taking the top 10 plus whatever will make 3 per country

I don't think it's going to change anytime soon. There's too many factors at play for them to get rid of it at this point.

 

[Belinda]

Not sure what Olympics you guys watch, but the one I watch for sure has a restriction as to how many competitors from each country moves on to finals, or even gets to compete.. As does a lot of world championships.

The three per country rule is in fact in place, and is a part of iasf, anyone not agreeing with it has an abundance of usasf division to choose from. No one is being forced one way or another. If teams knew they would likely only get to compete once, there is no attraction to fork out the amount on money it actually costs to go. It's not only the travel cost, but also accommodations, food, and competition fees. You have to remember that you can probably count on one hand the amount of teams outside of north America with any type of paid bid. (so even though flights might cost the same from Cali and Jamaica, most Cali teams gets a part, if not all, of it paid by usasf)

Skickat från min EML-L29 via Tapatalk

 

[BlueCat]

There's several solutions like entering a USASF Senior Open division, taking the top 10 plus whatever will make 3 per country

I don't think it's going to change anytime soon. There's too many factors at play for them to get rid of it at this point.

On this we agree - it won't change any time soon. On the IASF side, every country, regardless of how many teams or athletes are represented, gets a single vote. 1 country (soon to be 2) is significantly hindered by the rule, and many others benefit from keeping many of their strongest competitors out of finals.

Again, I am on board with searching for ways to alleviate the cost imbalance somehow. However, the scoresheet, finalists, and ultimately the results/winners of our world championship are not something I will likely ever favor "balancing" out for economic/geographic/political concerns. If you want to be awarded a top ranking in the World, you should be one of the best teams.

 

[Nothanks]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BlueCat]

Not sure what Olympics you guys watch, but the one I watch for sure has a restriction as to how many competitors from each country moves on to finals, or even gets to compete.. As does a lot of world championships.

The three per country rule is in fact in place, and is a part of iasf, anyone not agreeing with it has an abundance of usasf division to choose from. No one is being forced one way or another. If teams knew they would likely only get to compete once, there is no attraction to fork out the amount on money it actually costs to go. It's not only the travel cost, but also accommodations, food, and competition fees. You have to remember that you can probably count on one hand the amount of teams outside of north America with any type of paid bid. (so even though flights might cost the same from Cali and Jamaica, most Cali teams gets a part, if not all, of it paid by usasf)

The USASF Open divisions are new. That hasn't been an option previously. I hate the massive number of divisions we have now, but we absolutely will send more and more teams toward the USASF side when possible. Few events award paid bids in "International" divisions, so paid bids in those divisions are much harder to come by. Also, I think paid bids are generally harder to get than people think. We regularly see more defending medalists competing than there are bids at an event.

Olympics is set up as a country-vs-country event. You represent your country there. It makes sense. (FWIW, I don't love the rule in gymnastics that limits the all-around finalists).

In my mind, it should be more like Wimbledon, Tour de France, Boston Marathon, Australian Open, Ironman, etc. where athletes/teams represent either themselves or their private clubs. There are no rules that say the Wimbledon finalists can't be two Russians. You could have the top 10 Boston Marathon finishers all be Kenyan and no one would bat an eye.

I get the other side and I can respect that view, however. I just don't see it that way.

 

[Eyes On The Prize]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Literally wtf.

I'm sorry but I do not agree that this was the correct decision. And it makes me wonder where USASF/IASF's backbone is. The SECOND they get put under pressure they fold? Hey, Brandon coaches, y'all better hop on board and seek repercussions now too.

Not only this but they've taken so many globing moments away from athletes from one eff up after another. What are they actually doing? Who is even running this? One scoring mistake is an honest mistake. Multiple scoring mistakes is not a mistake. Maybe USASF should step down from being an EP for a weekend and focus on enforcing rules. Because they clearly can't do both at the same time.

How many peoples money have they wasted this weekend?