All-Star Your Definition Of A World's Caliber Team

[garretttt]

How do we fix this???? I don't believe that Worlds can survive, and Thrive for that matter if only 100, or less teams show up, I would imagine... Maybe there needs to be some scoresheet regulations, with the teams in the Worlds divisions being judged with the scoresheet from Worlds at every National that they attend, maybe this would level the playing field. I can't imagine this happening, but one can hope that there will be some advances with the scoring for these teams. IMO, if you get a bid, at large, partial, or paid, and you can afford to attend, and really want to be there, then you should go if that is what your gym desires to do. I really don't think there is anything that any of us can do, unless we are on the panels of the usasf where these rules are voted on, or discussed. Every Coach or Gym Owner who is certified thru the governing body should be able to bring things like this up, and have it discussed, if it has become an issue, which based on many of the posts on here maybe it should be? Cheers Ya'll!!;)

i think competitions should only be able to give out 4-6 at large bids regardless of how many partial/full paid bids they give out.

 

[Flyer mom]

2 words: March Madness.

68 teams. Some "at large bids", some not. Some teams ranked 16th going in. So...to answer your question, NCAA Basketball.

That is a really bad example. In order to get a bid into the NCAA bid you have to win your conference, our win your conference tournament. So that is really bad example and proves that they have minimum requirements. So three words you are wrong. They only allow winners in also. A sixteen seed still won their conference, or their conference tournament. They did not finish 11th out of 12 and were told you are in because we have noone else to give it to. It is also chosen by winning throughout the year, notice I said winning.

 

[Deleted member 1556]

How do we fix this???? I don't believe that Worlds can survive, and Thrive for that matter if only 100, or less teams show up, I would imagine... Maybe there needs to be some scoresheet regulations, with the teams in the Worlds divisions being judged with the scoresheet from Worlds at every National that they attend, maybe this would level the playing field. I can't imagine this happening, but one can hope that there will be some advances with the scoring for these teams. IMO, if you get a bid, at large, partial, or paid, and you can afford to attend, and really want to be there, then you should go if that is what your gym desires to do. I really don't think there is anything that any of us can do, unless we are on the panels of the usasf where these rules are voted on, or discussed. Every Coach or Gym Owner who is certified thru the governing body should be able to bring things like this up, and have it discussed, if it has become an issue, which based on many of the posts on here maybe it should be? Cheers Ya'll!!;)

I think less bids need to be given out. A lot less. I actually would love for them to get rid of at large bids, and see everyone fight for those coveted spots for paids. I miss when each division was a fight to win, and everyone was really competitive. That would really be the best of the best, which I really wish worlds still was. To get back to the way worlds was, less bids need to be given out. If you get an at large bid, and are in last place, there is something wrong with that picture. Your not one of the best. This sounds really harsh, but it's not meant to. Look at the first year of worlds- programs that now dominate (Stingrays, World Cup, etc) didn't make it.

 

[kevinnxx]

world cup didnt go to any bid qualifying competitions that year

 

[illtradewithany0ne]

just remember, EVERYONE starts somewhere.
the most elite teams, were small once, remember that.....

 

[cheererinIL]

:sigh:

We're beating a dead horse. I'm just gonna keep my little thoughts to myself about this and we can all agree to strongly disagree.

 

[MyssMyst]

Some of the comments in this thread make me sick. What is the point of calling out a specific gym? It's not productive in any way, nor were some of the comments made about that article. Really, it wasn't that bad. So you don't agree with some of the teams going to Worlds. Bottom line is, even if it's hopeless, the team got the bid. Suck it up and deal.

Spend time talking about how to fix the system. That's the problem here, not the many young athletes who have worked their buns off, I don't care if it's 4 weeks or 4 years, in the hope of just being able to go. I don't think the so-called "unworthy" teams really think they're going to pull a miracle and beat the "worthy". I am so sick of hearing who "deserves" what and who just "got lucky" that day. Are there ways to reduce the number of bids given out? Definitely. Does it impact the amount of money coming into Worlds if we have less at-large teams? Yes. My question is this: Where does that money go in the end?

If it's not already, why not channel it into continuing education for coaches? Help increase the safety of our athletes, and give coaches a way to continually learn and GET their teams to be worlds-caliber. Use it to improve athlete certification programs, etc. The at-large bids could do the industry as a whole a lot of good, if they're being used that way. *If* used that way, it's single-event prestige or industry prestige.

 

[kristenthegreat]

Just remember: If we reduce the number of bids, it doesn't mean your magical favorite team will get it. It can still go to that gym you don't WANT it to go to if they have a better day or what have you. For a while this year were some 'popular' gyms who didn't look like they would go, simply because they weren't quite close enough to a paid bid. If even more bids go away, count on less of your favorites going as well.

I sort of feel like some people are totally ok with OTHERS being cut but still want the recognition of themselves being the 'underdog.'

 

[ACEDAD]

That is a really bad example. In order to get a bid into the NCAA bid you have to win your conference, our win your conference tournament. So that is really bad example and proves that they have minimum requirements. So three words you are wrong. They only allow winners in also. A sixteen seed still won their conference, or their conference tournament. They did not finish 11th out of 12 and were told you are in because we have noone else to give it to. It is also chosen by winning throughout the year, notice I said winning.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Tennessee & Georgia didn't win their conference or their conference tournament. In fact, Tennessee finished 5th out of 6th in the SEC east. They received an at large bid. I'm pretty sure it's because all of the teams in the east ahead of them already had bids.

Try again.

 

[Just-a-Mom]

Just remember: If we reduce the number of bids, it doesn't mean your magical favorite team will get it. It can still go to that gym you don't WANT it to go to if they have a better day or what have you. For a while this year were some 'popular' gyms who didn't look like they would go, simply because they weren't quite close enough to a paid bid. If even more bids go away, count on less of your favorites going as well.

I sort of feel like some people are totally ok with OTHERS being cut but still want the recognition of themselves being the 'underdog.'

Sorry, but you are wrong. Tennessee & Georgia didn't win their conference or their conference tournament. In fact, Tennessee finished 5th out of 6th in the SEC east. They received an at large bid. I'm pretty sure it's because all of the teams in the east ahead of them already had bids.

Try again.

Um...yes. What they said...times 1,000,000.

 

[MyssMyst]

Sorry, but you are wrong. Tennessee & Georgia didn't win their conference or their conference tournament. In fact, Tennessee finished 5th out of 6th in the SEC east. They received an at large bid. I'm pretty sure it's because all of the teams in the east ahead of them already had bids.

Try again.

Good point. BYU didn't win their conference tournament either.

 

[ellen495]

I thought there was only one side to this argument until I read this thread. I still feel strongly that only those teams who are the best of the best should go. How do we figure that out? I am in no position to make that decision - I'm a lowly cheer mom. Maybe set score ... I don't know. I can't imagine dishing out 1000 dollars for my child to compete at Worlds with a team that consistenly falls, bobbles, etc.
On the other hand, some of you make reasonable points - if the kids really want to go, who is anyone to say no at this point?
I do believe the day we make universal score sheets and stronger rules for teams to go to Worlds (and other BIG competitions), the world will begin to believe we are a sport.
But I wish everyone going to Worlds this year good luck and good times!

 

[Ashay]

If you got a bid then you "should" be good enough to go to Worlds! Of course everyone wants to win worlds but those who know that they dont really have a chance gear towards a goal in making top 10 or even top 5 and that is important to them. IMO It is about the experience and I dont think we have the right to say who should get a bid and who shouldnt!

 

[Just-a-Mom]

Just got done reading an article on Yahoo about the NCAA tournament. All I can say is all you doubters who think you "know" who has a right to go to Worlds and who doesn't deserve to be there...can't you even admit that maybe, just maybe, once in awhile, those teams you thought were nobodies who don't stand a chance might possibly come out swinging and shock you? There is not one team, NOT ONE, in the Final Four that was a top seed going in. There aren't even any No. 2 seeds.

What??? NO best of the best? In their National tournament to determine the best of the best? Crazy. And you know what? There are thousands, thousands, of people who say that's awesome. And that it's great to see the underdog triumph. Wonder why we, a group of people who swear that sportsmanship is one of our most important qualities, can't accept the same thing.

 

[newcheerdad]

Just got done reading an article on Yahoo about the NCAA tournament. All I can say is all you doubters who think you "know" who has a right to go to Worlds and who doesn't deserve to be there...can't you even admit that maybe, just maybe, once in awhile, those teams you thought were nobodies who don't stand a chance might possibly come out swinging and shock you? There is not one team, NOT ONE, in the Final Four that was a top seed going in. There aren't even any No. 2 seeds.

What??? NO best of the best? In their National tournament to determine the best of the best? Crazy. And you know what? There are thousands, thousands, of people who say that's awesome. And that it's great to see the underdog triumph. Wonder why we, a group of people who swear that sportsmanship is one of our most important qualities, can't accept the same thing.

I could provide a dissertation about how scholarship limits and early-entry rules in the NBA have created parity in college basketball, to the point where a team like VCU or Butler can make the Final Four. (and on a regular basis, too - look at George Mason a few years ago)

I don't think anyone can realistically argue that there's "parity" at the elite levels in all-star cheer, at least not right now.

The difference, as I stated in a post above, is that even the teams that snuck into the tournament with the last at-large seeds were the 67th and 68th best teams in the country out of about 340. That's about 20%. I'm guessing that more than 20% of all small senior 5 teams got worlds bids this year. So I can accept the argument, on its face, that there's a decreasing lack of prestige in getting a bid to Worlds.

But the more I think about it, the less I think it's a bad thing. The Olympics are filled with teams and athletes that are clearly a cut below the "elite", but they participate anyway. And in some cases, do much better than expected. If we want a minimum standard, or some kind of official qualifying tournament before Worlds, then I wouldn't be upset about it. But I don't think it's a major priority to fix, either.