All-Star What Is The Best Way To Distribute Worlds Bids?

[Mclovin]

My opinion....

Have local competitions that award spots to regional competitions that award spots to their one and only national. Then let the best teams go head to head and top scores win. Final placements/scores determine whether it's at-large, partial or paid.

 

[MaximumAllStars]

I enjoy how GSSA does it. They have their two day competition, and after those two performances they take their top 6 Level 5 scoring teams (all girl, coed, large, small, international, etc) and put them in the "Super Six" division. In the Super Six performance the judges don't use a scoresheet. At the end, they award the bids (this past season it was a paid and two at large bids) to the teams they believe deserve them.

 

[socratesofcheer]

The BEST teams get them. Regardless of division, score, or whatever.

I enjoy how GSSA does it. They have their two day competition, and after those two performances they take their top 6 Level 5 scoring teams (all girl, coed, large, small, international, etc) and put them in the "Super Six" division. In the Super Six performance the judges don't use a scoresheet. At the end, they award the bids (this past season it was a paid and two at large bids) to the teams they believe deserve them.

So... The best teams got em. Brilliant plan, GSSA obviously subscribes to the Socrates school of common sense.

 

[newcheerdad]

I suggested this in another thread - try getting rid of at-large bids altogether. As long as you compete in X number of bid-awarding competitions through the year, you can participate in Worlds.

As for paid bids, I'd suggest they go to the highest-scoring teams at your competition that have not received a paid bid. End of story. Suggesting you give the bid to a team because you THINK they're the best team or because they pass the "eyeball test" is bogus. Otherwise, how can we consider this a competitive sport?

Next up - Pittsburgh wins the Super Bowl because they "looked" better than Green Bay.

 

[WyldWon]

If all Worlds teams are judged by the same panel, I say highest scores, regardless of division. If they are scored by different panels, I say highest scoring division winners

I have a HUGE problem when bids are awarded at larger comps where there a two different panels judging...there is always one panel who judges higher. I think the 2 top scoring teams judges by the different panels with a bid at stake should be video judged by both panels...JMO

 

[JustCheer]

O

I think highest scores.

BUT

Only if you start requiring males to truly coed stunt and get a good score that way. Men in group stunting has always been a little silly to me.

I think you have stated coed stunt in like every post i've seen, lol. I think its just so much to ask high school tumblers boys, besides size ratios (compared to college) I mean people should be rewarded but i think its almost far-fetched, looking at cheerleading in high school teams and allstar coed stunting before college just doesnt seem so probable. I feel a lot of people are not well versed in coaching it, but thats just me.

 

[King]

What if all bids were awarded just by the EP's opinion? Let us say Joe the EP owner decides to distribute his bids however he likes?

I would say the only rule I would like in place, no matter what, you cannot award a bid to a lower placing team if a team above them does not have a bid.

So, Awesome allstars places 2nd. Amazing allstars places 1st. Neither has a paid bid. The EP REALLY likes Awesome allstars. They cannot award a bid to Awesome allstars and give Amazing allstars nothing. They could give a bid to Awesome allstars if they give a paid bid to Amazing allstars first.

Make sense?

 

[newcheerdad]

What if all bids were awarded just by the EP's opinion? Let us say Joe the EP owner decides to distribute his bids however he likes?

I would say the only rule I would like in place, no matter what, you cannot award a bid to a lower placing team if a team above them does not have a bid.

So, Awesome allstars places 2nd. Amazing allstars places 1st. Neither has a paid bid. The EP REALLY likes Awesome allstars. They cannot award a bid to Awesome allstars and give Amazing allstars nothing. They could give a bid to Awesome allstars if they give a paid bid to Amazing allstars first.

Make sense?

UPA thinks that's a bad idea.

 

[King]

O


I think you have stated coed stunt in like every post i've seen, lol. I think its just so much to ask high school tumblers boys, besides size ratios (compared to college) I mean people should be rewarded but i think its almost far-fetched, looking at cheerleading in high school teams and allstar coed stunting before college just doesnt seem so probable. I feel a lot of people are not well versed in coaching it, but thats just me.

Boys in group stunts just make things a bit silly. Hence why Small Small is the best stunting division. You guarantee a guy in each group you are gonna get some crazy group stunts. That cant be compared stunt wise to all girl groups.. unless you have boys coed stunt. Even 120 pound boys can toss hands extension. Yes it is difficult, but if you don't require it it will never get better.

 

[Ignis Pater]

An event producer offers UP TO X number of paid bids and Y at-large. Then the paid bids go to the highest scoring division winners. In order to win a paid bid a team would have to score 97% (just made that up) of max score. If no team or less than X score high enough then the bid is not given out. If it is late in the year and a big competition such as NCA has 6 paid then non division winning teams may be in line, if so they would have to score 98% of the division winners score. At-large bids could be based on a slightly lower percentage. If all the paid bids advertised were not given out, the corresponding number of at-larges would be held back as well. This would allow EPs to advertise a certain number of bids could be given out and save money if the score do not reach the level required. This also ensure that the best of the best go to Worlds. I am not trying to start a new thread or trouble with this statement but 60+ small senior is not the best of the best, it's everybody.

 

[ACEDAD]

An event producer offers UP TO X number of paid bids and Y at-large. Then the paid bids go to the highest scoring division winners. In order to win a paid bid a team would have to score 97% (just made that up) of max score. If no team or less than X score high enough then the bid is not given out. If it is late in the year and a big competition such as NCA has 6 paid then non division winning teams may be in line, if so they would have to score 98% of the division winners score. At-large bids could be based on a slightly lower percentage. If all the paid bids advertised were not given out, the corresponding number of at-larges would be held back as well. This would allow EPs to advertise a certain number of bids could be given out and save money if the score do not reach the level required. This also ensure that the best of the best go to Worlds. I am not trying to start a new thread or trouble with this statement but 60+ small senior is not the best of the best, it's everybody.

What happens to the money not awarded via bids?

 

[Ignis Pater]

What happens to the money not awarded via bids?

The EP keeps it. It is theirs after all.

 

[ACEDAD]

What happens to the money not awarded via bids?

The EP keeps it. It is theirs after all.

Currently, the paid bids are the EP's USASF dues. So the rule is that the paid bids HAVE to be awarded. How would you change that?

 

[socratesofcheer]

I suggested this in another thread - try getting rid of at-large bids altogether. As long as you compete in X number of bid-awarding competitions through the year, you can participate in Worlds.

As for paid bids, I'd suggest they go to the highest-scoring teams at your competition that have not received a paid bid. End of story. Suggesting you give the bid to a team because you THINK they're the best team or because they pass the "eyeball test" is bogus. Otherwise, how can we consider this a competitive sport?

Next up - Pittsburgh wins the Super Bowl because they "looked" better than Green Bay.

Generally you make a fairly good argument. However, this one is not.
First off, there is no real way to "score" an unlimited coed vs. a small small coed. Don't care how amazing of a judge they think they are, they can not do it. So you select the "better" team.
Second, in football and most other sports you get a pre-determined amount of points for a specific athletic feat. In cheerleading you do not. Suggesting that a team win the super bowl by looks and trying to compare that to cheerleading is bogus and very, very short sighted.

 

[newcheerdad]

Generally you make a fairly good argument. However, this one is not.
First off, there is no real way to "score" an unlimited coed vs. a small small coed. Don't care how amazing of a judge they think they are, they can not do it. So you select the "better" team.
Second, in football and most other sports you get a pre-determined amount of points for a specific athletic feat. In cheerleading you do not. Suggesting that a team win the super bowl by looks and trying to compare that to cheerleading is bogus and very, very short sighted.

That's an issue with scoring rubrics, then. The way to solve that problem isn't to ignore it.