All-Star Worlds- Saturday SCORES

[heavenly]

I actually thought they were combining A & B and then taking the top 60%.

I agree with you, it's not right, period!

I was also under the impression that the two groups would be judged by same panel (two panels wouldn't have really caused a mess) just with a break between the two.

Then the two groups were then combined in score sequence, with the top whatever percentage going on to finals.

 

[heavenly]

If I'm doing this right the top 60% is 36 out of 60 teams. Team 36 (which is a tie) with lowest scores were Elite and Greensboro having 470.75, didn't mark down the groups they were with. That's if they took A and B and put all their scores together.

The lowest score of 18th team in Group A is 135.08333 OC All Stars

The lowest score of 18th team in Group B is 149.33333 Heat Athletics

That's a big difference in points leaving a lot of team between the lowest scores of A and B left out of finals.

Sorry, doesn't seem very fair if you look at it this way.

 

[clz mom]

Exactly!

 

[cheermom89]

I am a parent from Elite Cheer Michigan and it was tough on our girls when we did not hear their name called for finals. However it was almost more disappointing when we got all the scores and noticed several A teams scored lower than us and still made it to finals.Sad

In my opinion they should have judged the first 30 teams then taken a break for lunch, come back and then judged the last 30 and combined them all together and then announced the top 36 finalists. I know this concern was expressed in a thread a week or so ago and they were correct.

 

[Beeis4Becca]

Does anyone have a list of Small Limited scores from both groups like that?

 

[ACEDAD]

There may have been some issues with this method. We all KNEW there were some issues with the previous couple of years.

So far, there hasn't been a perfect way developed. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[heavenly]

It's not a very hard concept to put together though, if you just organize and put the motions in gear properly.

It would have worked perfectly if they did it the way they were supposed to. Having Group A and Group B at different times, wasn't the issue. Having the same judging panel do both, wasn't the issue. That actually was the best scenario, at this particular competition, you couldn't have two different panels doing the judging. The differences in their opinions and views would have been totally unfair. Look what happens at Cheersport when you have the different divisions with the different judging panels.

The issue was taking top 18 from Group A and top 18 from Group B. It shouldn't have mattered that there were more from either group. The groups were just put together that way for performance purposes. When you put them all together in the score rankings as listed in a previous reply, you then take the top 60% (36 teams) and there are, or should have been, your final competitors.

Doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure this one out. It actually seems like a cut and dry system, easy to understand with a little common sense.

 

[BubbleToes]

Right!!!! Easy as pie...

1. Score group A.
2. Take a break.
3. Score group B.
4. Put the scores together
5. Move 50% of the teams with the highest scores to finals.

I don't understand why that's such a hard concept to grasp or why USASF thought it be more fair to move group A first, before B was scored. Same judges, same break, same scores...what was the reason for moving group A and B separately instead of all together once scored?

 

[clz mom]

Agree completely!

 

[BubbleToes]

I find it hard to believe no one thought of this before this "group A/B" thing was put into place. I'm surprised that ANYONE making this decision thought scoring group A and moving them to finals before B was scored found this to be a fair system. Did you not have the discussion we're having now? Especially when using the same judges and justifying it with "they need a break". You can have your break, I'm sure it's well needed...but ALL scores should've been considered before sending teams to finals. THIS IS WORLDS! I think alot of teams got the shaft on this one.

 

[heavenly]

Too expensive a trip. Too much stress on parents and cheerleaders. Too important a competition.

My heart goes out to those teams that should have made it to finals with the higher scores but didn't. There is no way to explain to the girls what happened to them or to justify this.

Let's have the small senior 5 all go back and do it again. Of course, having USASF picking up the entire tab and getting it right this time. Do all of this and make sure the girls get to enjoy the parks at Disney this time. Now that is a good idea.

 

[xcheermom]

THIS IS WORLDS! I think alot of teams got the shaft on this one.

AGREED!!

 

[3050451]

Couldn't they have picked a set score as the cut off and any team that scored higher would be moved on to day 2 ? That way they still would be able to have the 2 groups compete and announce standings, judges would get a break, and the teams moving to Day 2 would be fairly selected.

 

[flipflipflip]

Easiest just to allow less teams in worlds. 8 hours is too long. But as it has been said before at large teams pay and that is what makes worlds possible

 

[ACEDAD]

Easiest just to allow less teams in worlds. 8 hours is too long. But as it has been said before at large teams pay and that is what makes worlds possible

Please keep in mind that there were about 60 fewer teams at worlds this year than last because of reduced bids.