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

[BlueCat]

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.)

 

[XtremeWpg]

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.)

I think they should take the top 10 to finals, then if there aren't 3 per country in that top 10, take additional teams to create a minimum of 3 per country in finals. If that makes sense. That way, you get the 10 best into finals, while still allowing for international growth/representation.

 

[UCFKnights07]

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.)

I agree with it and I dont agree with it. I think there should be a cutoff point. Like if you dont place in the top 15 or 20 you dont move on regardless what country your from.
I saw some teams got to move on to finals even though score wise they were no where near scoring close to the 100 range.
(I apologize if I'm getting the numbers wrong but you get the point)

 

[Eyes On The Prize]

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.)

I think with the emphasis on stunting on the Worlds score sheet and the addition of NT divisions, the three per country rule needs to go. International teams have voiced their frustrations about having to compete with US teams who out-tumble them and accommodations have been made to cater to them.

IMO, the field is more "level" now than it was when that rule was first created. The rule seems redundant at this point.

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

I agree with it and I dont agree with it. I think there should be a cutoff point. Like if you dont place in the top 15 or 20 you dont move on regardless what country your from.
I saw some teams got to move on to finals even though score wise they were no where near scoring close to the 100 range.
(I apologize if I'm getting the numbers wrong but you get the point)

And there was that poor French team with a negative score that advanced. But I agree with you. I think there should be a minimum score, standing. But with other open options for US teams now, I think it is fine to have rules that make it “international”. That being said, I think the lower levels “international’ is weird. It doesn’t really make sense to me.

 

[icequeen]

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.)

I honestly don’t like the rule. It’s unfair to a team to be left out of finals due to the country limit. I also think it is unfair on the Olympic side as well. It’s suppose to be the best of the best, then show it.

 

[cheermomforever]

I know there are rules, but it says "these rules MAY be used in the case of...." so it's really still up in the air if they want to use them or not, they can hide behind the wording

thats the problem.....

 

[UCFKnights07]

I honestly don’t like the rule. It’s unfair to a team to be left out of finals due to the country limit. I also think it is unfair on the Olympic side as well. It’s suppose to be the best of the best, then show it.

money has got to be the main reason behind it, they probably make more money bringing in the international teams then they do the US teams. But thats just my guess.

 

[cheermomforever]

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.)

due to that rule some team (s) switched divisions late in the season for a comp in March to place better....... they might not of moved onto finals if they hadnt. its really not the "best of the best" when top 3 per country automatically move on no matter what score.

 

[BlueCat]

FWIW, I am adamantly opposed to geography playing a role in the results for either USASF or IASF. I think it makes perfect sense for ICU, as that is country vs. country, but not for a gym vs. gym event like Worlds.

There was a negative score (!!) making it in, there were divisions where the bottom 10 teams got more finalists than the top 10, and there were teams getting cut from finals that had scores 100+ points higher than some finalists. The scoresheet has already been skewed away far away from tumbling, I think that is more than enough geographic adjustment.

Option 1: Make it like USASF divisions. Merit (scores) alone is what matters. Top 10 teams make it to finals.
Option 2: Top 10 scores make it in OR if you are the highest team from your country, you get in.

money has got to be the main reason behind it, they probably make more money bringing in the international teams then they do the US teams. But thats just my guess.

That is true, but is oversimplifying it. There are complicated politics involved with a ton of grey on every side. Growth in international markets can mean more uniforms sold, camps held, and influence for the folks behind the scenes. In and of itself, that isn't necessarily bad - but it can lead to skewed decision-making at times, IMO.

 

[XtremeWpg]

And there was that poor French team with a negative score that advanced. But I agree with you. I think there should be a minimum score, standing. But with other open options for US teams now, I think it is fine to have rules that make it “international”. That being said, I think the lower levels “international’ is weird. It doesn’t really make sense to me.

Lower levels international operate on a separate and distinct age grid. One that doesn’t completely make sense if I’m being honest, like the requirement to compete with a minimum of 16 athletes.

 

[quitthedrama]

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.)

They created an entirely new division in Senior Open (with 3 subcategories) to "resolve" that issue. Instead they should have taken top 10 plus 3 per country for the International divisions.

 

[wishfulthinking]

Personally I think top 3 from each country, and then the top 10 after that, if that makes sense. Gives you the best both of both worlds.

 

[CookieMomster]

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.

 

[emo_wifey]

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.)

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?