All-Star Will Eps Validate Teams Against The Usasf Athlete Membership System?

[King]

You can quite literally be a Satanic cult and receive 501 (c) 3 status. Having that particular number on your tax form is not the end-all-be-all measuring stick of a group's "goodness".

Example: http://www.cultofcthulhu.net/

Yes, but they are not a non-profit business. They are a not-for-profit organization. Does that differ from the other governing bodies in other sports?

 

[yojaehs]

I don't understand USASF's problem with this. USASF has Worlds, if you want to attend Worlds or give out bids then you need to be a member, they just need to step up and require it. So what if someone else makes the WTHASF, they won't have WORLDS. My problem with the membership (which I am and so is my gym) is other than being able to walk backstage, what do I (or my gym) get from this "Membership"? If it was a REQUIREMENT to attend ALL events then it would actually MEAN something. Until its a requirement it will be chicken/egg or dog/tail.

 

[thebowqueen]

I sincerely doubt that the USASF would limit bids based on the fact that they now receive a guaranteed revenue source in the form of athlete registration. Just like any form of government, once they start getting more money they are going to demand more and more and more.

And I don't think those teams that "don't belong at Worlds" are complaining at all about having to pay to go when it is their ultimate goal and dream to compete on the big stage against the best of the best. I'm pretty sure those teams would rather pay their own way on an at-large bid than not get the chance to go at all because they didn't get a partial. Some gyms obviously do not allow teams to go on at-large but there are a whole lot that do. So why not let them continue to fund the USASF?

 

[cupieqt]

A lot of people forget that the USASF is a business first. They are the ultimate EP. They put on 2 competitions (cheer and dance) once a year and rake in the dollars from it. They've also created the rules that now all other EPs have to follow even though they were operating long before the USASF was even an idea. I am pro-usasf (or any governing body to help regulate the sport) but I've been patiently waiting for major changes. I applaud the positive things the USASF is doing and will gladly pay to be a part of something that is driving the changes... but when problems that are obvious don't get fixed quickly it reminds me that it's probably about the money.
The OP asked how the registration will help them regulate cheating. It won't.

Forget about the price tag. Cha ching ba bling

 

[BlueCat]

A lot of people forget that the USASF is a business first. They are the ultimate EP. They put on 2 competitions (cheer and dance) once a year and rake in the dollars from it. They've also created the rules that now all other EPs have to follow even though they were operating long before the USASF was even an idea. I am pro-usasf (or any governing body to help regulate the sport) but I've been patiently waiting for major changes. I applaud the positive things the USASF is doing and will gladly pay to be a part of something that is driving the changes... but when problems that are obvious don't get fixed quickly it reminds me that it's probably about the money.
The OP asked how the registration will help them regulate cheating. It won't.

Forget about the price tag. Cha ching ba bling

The changes that I assume you are talking about are not being held up by a desire for money for the USASF executives. The politics of trying to keep all the different groups (Varsity, JAM, Independent Eps, Gyms, Athletes, Coaches, Non-US teams, etc.) happy, involved, and still participating is much more of a deterrent for speedy progress than greed. All of those groups often have different views, different motivations, and different ideas of what the rules/guidelines should be. For better or worse, the give and take of keeping everyone "happy enough" is painfully time consuming.

 

[Future]

Yes, but they are not a non-profit business. They are a not-for-profit organization. Does that differ from the other governing bodies in other sports?

There are 35 sports recognized by the International Olympic Committee, there are 24 sports sanctioned by the NCAA. 100% of all of the NGB's for these sports are 501(c )3. The laws of our country, as found in the U.S. Code, specifically state a NGB must be of this IRS status and ALL NGB's are governed by the US Olympic Committee. There is no way around this one. And the operation of a true non profit 501(c )3 must show CLEAR organization and governance that is unbiased and cannot show outside influence (i.e., from a profit company). And one additional note: there are different requirements for 501(c )3 that are national governing bodies from say, a Satanic Cult might have.

 

[Future]

The changes that I assume you are talking about are not being held up by a desire for money for the USASF executives. The politics of trying to keep all the different groups (Varsity, JAM, Independent Eps, Gyms, Athletes, Coaches, Non-US teams, etc.) happy, involved, and still participating is much more of a deterrent for speedy progress than greed. All of those groups often have different views, different motivations, and different ideas of what the rules/guidelines should be. For better or worse, the give and take of keeping everyone "happy enough" is painfully time consuming.

It is funny how in all of these posts, there are companies and groups always mentioned. But not once, not ONCE are there discussions about the changes that are best for the ATHLETES. All of these different factions will forever have differing opinions when it comes to molding the profit model…what is best for ME…..and it will not happen until all groups are willing to put the athletes first. What is best for them….example: Critical height studies by the medical community have determined that grass is not a safe surface….yet AACCA still says it is. The statistics for catastrophic and major injuries and concussions are from height skills onto these surfaces, including grass….so why is this still an acceptable surface? Hmmm…let's examine this. Varsity, NCA, UCA, USA…all of the Varsity camps need to have outside camps…they use fields at schools. If AACCA were to remove the grass is a safe surface and declare it what is really should be…unsafe…then Varsity would now have to ship in mats to each camp….majorly cutting into a profit margin…they could not raise the price of the camp as it would be too expensive to absorb this cost. When the groups mentioned above decide that the health of our children is the MOST IMPORTANT THING, then you will see motivation for change.

 

[Future]

The issue is that every year there are numerous outcries from so many that there are too many teams at Worlds, too many at large bids given out, teams that don't deserve to go, etc. I have already explained my position on this many times on every version of these boards since ProX. Mine is pretty close to yours. It is the system that is messed up but to fix it would cost USASF and EP's money that they dont want to lose.

The point that Bluecat brought up and I spoke to is that the current business model demands the large numbers of teams there because in his opinion/knowledge Worlds is a major revenue stream for USASF. If they cut the amount of bids, USASF loses money. Until USASF has another source of guaranteed revenue those crying for limiting bids are spitting in the proverbial wind. USASF is saying with Worlds business first, competition second while many on the boards are saying competition first, business second.

USASF does not loose money on Worlds. Go to their web site under 'Financials'. Then go to the IRS and look up ICU…and their income from Worlds…..the main company controlling Worlds is not going broke….by any means.

 

[BlueCat]

Critical height studies by the medical community have determined that grass is not a safe surface.

Source please.

 

[cupieqt]

The changes that I assume you are talking about are not being held up by a desire for money for the USASF executives. The politics of trying to keep all the different groups (Varsity, JAM, Independent Eps, Gyms, Athletes, Coaches, Non-US teams, etc.) happy, involved, and still participating is much more of a deterrent for speedy progress than greed. All of those groups often have different views, different motivations, and different ideas of what the rules/guidelines should be. For better or worse, the give and take of keeping everyone "happy enough" is painfully time consuming.

I don't understand why it would take them a long time to include the teams age/level for athlete registration since it's not a new concept. @tripleccoach recommended (or said we had to, i cant remember which) we register the athletes ourselves. If I'm going to go through the process of registering all my athletes I want it to be for a reason other than a registration fee and a membership card (that's good for what? A pass backstage--a uniform and an event pass already gets them that).

Major changes from my perspective would include athlete eligibility and required coaching background checks and certifications. I can see where this would be a time consuming process but I feel like we have been waiting forever. I still remember the meeting in New Orleans back in 05 where there was talk about implementing these things. If everyone can't agree then we will continue to chase our tails for another 6 years.

 

[Future]

Source please.

Playground equipment have these studies….also go to ASTM (product testing). Dr. Mueller from National Center of Catastrophic Sport Injury Research http://www.unc.edu/depts/nccsi/
And http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2775360/

 

[SharkDad]

It is funny how in all of these posts, there are companies and groups always mentioned. But not once, not ONCE are there discussions about the changes that are best for the ATHLETES. All of these different factions will forever have differing opinions when it comes to molding the profit model…what is best for ME…..and it will not happen until all groups are willing to put the athletes first. What is best for them….example: Critical height studies by the medical community have determined that grass is not a safe surface….yet AACCA still says it is. The statistics for catastrophic and major injuries and concussions are from height skills onto these surfaces, including grass….so why is this still an acceptable surface? Hmmm…let's examine this. Varsity, NCA, UCA, USA…all of the Varsity camps need to have outside camps…they use fields at schools. If AACCA were to remove the grass is a safe surface and declare it what is really should be…unsafe…then Varsity would now have to ship in mats to each camp….majorly cutting into a profit margin…they could not raise the price of the camp as it would be too expensive to absorb this cost. When the groups mentioned above decide that the health of our children is the MOST IMPORTANT THING, then you will see motivation for change.

I've been saying this for a while in a few different places, although I think you presented it much better than I did.

 

[hopskipandjump]

The changes that I assume you are talking about are not being held up by a desire for money for the USASF executives. The politics of trying to keep all the different groups (Varsity, JAM, Independent Eps, Gyms, Athletes, Coaches, Non-US teams, etc.) happy, involved, and still participating is much more of a deterrent for speedy progress than greed. All of those groups often have different views, different motivations, and different ideas of what the rules/guidelines should be. For better or worse, the give and take of keeping everyone "happy enough" is painfully time consuming.

I would say that you have correctly and perfectly captured the current situation we find ourselves in. At one of the very first meetings almost 10 years ago that I was at and a "worlds championship" was discussed, I was literally amazed how difficult it was to get event producers to agree to anything without something in it for themselves (at the time, I was one, so I do kind of know what I am talking about here). And it was not just money issues. It was simple things, like division names....(we call ours little sprites, you call yours little people, I call mine mighty mites, etc. = ridiculous). Not all event producers are like this btw, just like nothing is an absolute. But it was the owners/coaches who brought the idea of Worlds to the event producers. Not the other way around. And while I can never see Worlds going away, I sure can see other big events (i.e. US Finals, All Levels) going away because most of us just want a consistent and well governed end of season event. Perhaps the make up of the board should tilt strongly towards gym owners (large and small) and coaches with a small minority of event producers and companies. I do realize that you can be a gym owner, coach and an event producer, but in this case, you can't be both.

 

[hopskipandjump]

correction, both an event producer and a coach or event producer and a gym owner....

 

[BlueCat]

I would say that you have correctly and perfectly captured the current situation we find ourselves in. At one of the very first meetings almost 10 years ago that I was at and a "worlds championship" was discussed, I was literally amazed how difficult it was to get event producers to agree to anything without something in it for themselves (at the time, I was one, so I do kind of know what I am talking about here). And it was not just money issues. It was simple things, like division names....(we call ours little sprites, you call yours little people, I call mine mighty mites, etc. = ridiculous). Not all event producers are like this btw, just like nothing is an absolute. But it was the owners/coaches who brought the idea of Worlds to the event producers. Not the other way around. And while I can never see Worlds going away, I sure can see other big events (i.e. US Finals, All Levels) going away because most of us just want a consistent and well governed end of season event. Perhaps the make up of the board should tilt strongly towards gym owners (large and small) and coaches with a small minority of event producers and companies. I do realize that you can be a gym owner, coach and an event producer, but in this case, you can't be both.

We all have our unique perspectives. What I wish was that people would respect each others' opinions and debate the issues rationally without always aiming first at the assumed nefarious motives of the other person(s). I try to do that myself, and hopefully succeed to do that most of the time. (Although, there are certainly a few things that I have said or done that I later wish I could take back.)

I find that the vast majority of individuals, whether they be athletes, parents, coaches, gym owners, event producers, USASF executives, Jeff Webb, and even (to an extent) those who profit from lawsuits, genuinely want as many as possible young athletes to be safe and enjoy the sport. I'm sure that there are probably some individuals somewhere who are in this for the wrong reason, but those are few and far between.

That is not to say that we should all "hug and get along", but at least try to argue the issues without slamming the character of those who disagree.