Starting a High Performance Team Track ("A" Team vs. "B" Team)

[JBS]

Over the last few years we have never really deviated from our team structure...everyone that was on team was running through the same basic program. Now we are to the point of running two tracks within our JO women's program...an "A" team and a "B" team. I have a few questions for parents/coaches that currently have this structure in their gym.

1. What are the differences in the two tracks? (Age, hours, body type, commitment level, tops, etc.)
2. Does having two tracks cause issues in the gym or does everyone understand why it is done that way?

We also have an Xcel (Prep-op) team...so we will actually be moving to a three tiered system if we run two tracks within the JO system.

Warning: This is an Old Thread This discussion is older than 90 days. Information contained in it may no longer be current. Before you reply, please make sure you will be adding useful information to the thread and not just bringing back an old conversation. Feel free to start a new thread so we can have an updated conversation on the topic.

[coachmolly]

No. Just plain no.
If you have a prep-op track and a JO track, I really think that should be sufficient. The kids/parents who don't want to commit to the hours, commitment, and money that is required in USAG can take the prep-op route. The kids who are dedicated and push their way through the USAG route at their own pace. Picking and choosing who goes into an "A" group or "B" group is nothing but damaging to any of the kids.
I've written about my personal experience with this before but I will write about it again. I switched gyms as an 11 year old level 5. The HC did not see me do one skill, based on my age, level, and size he immediately put me in the "B" group. I didn't get the same coaching or opportunities as the other kids and it was miserable. I had no idea what I did wrong to be put in that group, and as someone who wanted nothing more than to be the best I could be in the gym, it was deeply hurtful to me. I still feel angry boiling over when I think about what this gym did to children and the impact it had on me, not only in terms of my gymnastics skills and ultimate progression, but also on the way I felt about myself as a person.
All kids deserve the OPPORTUNITY to progress. Not all kids will take advantage of that opportunity, not all kids will be capable of reaching the optional levels, but they should at the very least be given the chance if they have the desire to work hard and improve and have a passion for gymnastics. Some kids will look like they have limited potential early on and surprise you, others will look like future elites only to see their rapid progress screech to a halt when they grow or face a mental block.
Things like lack of commitment, unwillingness to commit to the required hours of the USAG program, and similar problems can, and should be addressed- and maybe in those cases the prep. op track could be recommended as a better fit. But in no way should a child be pushed onto a "B" team for body type, age, or because they are a TOPs superstar.
Just my 2 cents for what it's worth.

[mariposa]

I agree with CoachMolly. From a parent's perspective, my kid would have been one put on the "B" team likely, especially if they are chosen from a young age. But now, a few years later, she is doing just as well and sometimes better than the girls that were chosen for the "A" team (they are now on the same team and same coaches, they don't have an A and B team in her gym, but similar with how you get to team, either via the young talented/developmental program or just hope you get noticed somehow in regular recreational classes). I think that you could miss some hardworking and dedicated gymnasts if you get set in an A team, B team mode. And also think it creates division for no reason. If you have XCEL, you don't need 3 tracks, in my opinion.

[JBS]

No. Just plain no.
If you have a prep-op track and a JO track, I really think that should be sufficient. The kids/parents who don't want to commit to the hours, commitment, and money that is required in USAG can take the prep-op route. The kids who are dedicated and push their way through the USAG route at their own pace. Picking and choosing who goes into an "A" group or "B" group is nothing but damaging to any of the kids.
I've written about my personal experience with this before but I will write about it again. I switched gyms as an 11 year old level 5. The HC did not see me do one skill, based on my age, level, and size he immediately put me in the "B" group. I didn't get the same coaching or opportunities as the other kids and it was miserable. I had no idea what I did wrong to be put in that group, and as someone who wanted nothing more than to be the best I could be in the gym, it was deeply hurtful to me. I still feel angry boiling over when I think about what this gym did to children and the impact it had on me, not only in terms of my gymnastics skills and ultimate progression, but also on the way I felt about myself as a person.
All kids deserve the OPPORTUNITY to progress. Not all kids will take advantage of that opportunity, not all kids will be capable of reaching the optional levels, but they should at the very least be given the chance if they have the desire to work hard and improve and have a passion for gymnastics. Some kids will look like they have limited potential early on and surprise you, others will look like future elites only to see their rapid progress screech to a halt when they grow or face a mental block.
Things like lack of commitment, unwillingness to commit to the required hours of the USAG program, and similar problems can, and should be addressed- and maybe in those cases the prep. op track could be recommended as a better fit. But in no way should a child be pushed onto a "B" team for body type, age, or because they are a TOPs superstar.
Just my 2 cents for what it's worth.

What if you are on the other side of that...you are a 7 year old L5 with a perfect body type for gymnastics and both of your parents were gymnasts. Why should you be trained the same as an 11 year old L5 that struggles with kips and who's parents can't get them to practice on time?

What you speak of already exists between the JO team and the Xcel team to a point. It also exists between rec. and team.

Or are you telling me I should intensify my entire team to the "A" team standards? This would give me a smaller team. Far fewer children would have the chance to do team gymnastics.

[coachmolly]

What if you are on the other side of that...you are a 7 year old L5 with a perfect body type for gymnastics and both of your parents were gymnasts. Why should you be trained the same as an 11 year old L5 that struggles with kips and who's parents can't get them to practice on time?

What you speak of already exists between the JO team and the Xcel team to a point. It also exists between rec. and team.

Or are you telling me I should intensify my entire team to the "A" team standards? This would give me a smaller team. Far fewer children would have the chance to do team gymnastics.

But you already have that separation. If kids who don't have the time, money, commitment, etc. to compete USAG still want to compete in some way- they have the Xcel option. Why is there a need to start another track? And why is there a need for coaches to select who goes where? I think kids and families involved in the sport do a pretty good job of sorting themselves out as the levels progress.
And for the ultra-talented kids, there are programs like TOPs that you can do in addition to regular team training where they can work on TOPs specific skills. There are also plenty of opportunities in a reasonably sized level grouping with sufficient staff to cater to each gymnasts needs. If one gymnast finishes the assignment early, have them move on to uptraining. Not all kids in a given group/level need to be working on the exact same things at all times. I just have a problem when coaches try to pick and choose who gets the best resources and opportunities for advancement. All children should have the chance if they love gymnastics and can do so safely.

[Sparky]

We also have an "unofficial" A & B stream in our club (although you would never get any of the higher ups to admit it) and I have always adamantly disagreed with it (even though my child was in the unofficial "A" stream). It drives me absolutely bonkers that all kids are not given the same opportunity to show what they can achieve (and no, not all coaches are created equal). I have many times witnessed an athlete who wasn't a clear "natural" work hard and give their all to their sport acheive great things, just as I have seen naturally talented "wonderkids" slack off and end up quitting when things get a bit tough.

I totally agree with coachmolly - every child WHO WANTS TO TRY should be given at the very least a six month opportunity to show that they are willing to work hard. Saying and doing are definitely two different things, but I don't see how it is right that a single individual should be able to veto a child's chances of doing great things simply because they don't think the child can. It is just not right.

So, to answer the OP's question, I think that two tracks is plenty - one for the kids who are truly competitive and willing to commit (regardless of body type, etc.), and those who want a lesser commitment.

Just my two cents, I have to admit this one burns me up!

[JBS]

Just to be clear...our Xcel team is not yet able to serve as a "B" team for the JO program. It is not to that level yet. Eventually Xcel may be able to serve that purpose...but not right now. Most of our Xcel gymnasts are just learning RO-BHS.

[JBS]

I just have a problem when coaches try to pick and choose who gets the best resources and opportunities for advancement. All children should have the chance if they love gymnastics and can do so safely.

I never said they would have different resources...I said that would be grouped differently. Grouping by age, body type, and skill is not uncommon in athletics. Our local middle school still runs an A and B basketball team...on average...the A team is taller. Many sports...soccer...separate by age divisions. How about football?...lineman usually aren't the little kids.

Due to the fact that we do put many kids on team...our most talented kids may not be getting what they deserve.

I never said I was going to divide by coaches into A and B groups. I never said only B coaches would be coaching the B group.

[2gymmies]

I feel like this answer is a bit rambling, but here goes...

I have to say I'm leaning toward the A and B being acceptable depending on how children are chosen for that and if it is a seasonal thing (or permanent) or a tryout or how entry into it is handled - isn't that kinds of like Texas Dreams dream team? I agree that not all coaches are created equal but it seems like many of the top gyms have "groups" that train at different paces.

We have a small group that trains on a different schedule, more hours, at our gym right now and if I had to guess, I'd say they are on a college prep/elite track. My dd's are not in that group - I wish they were good enough, but I'm realistic enough to know that my oldest for sure is just not at the level. Those girls are quick learners and correcters, always have outstanding shapes, and are just obviously very talented with lots of potential. I'm not saying my daughter doesn't have potential, but she is definitely not at that level. That's not to say in another year or two, if she makes that group her goal and works hard, she could be a candidate for that - and I love that she is exposed to it and can aspire to it, if she so desires... I think some people do get upset by the two groups, but it is usually the parents with unrealistic Olympic hopes.

Good luck with your decisions!

[Empowered]

I am sorry but I completely disagree with the concept of placing a child in a set stream because of body type or what their parents did. What if someone had told Khorkina or Bouginskaya that they didn't have the right body type for gymnastics? We would have lost two world class gymnasts and pioneers in the sport. What if someone looked at Maroney's dad and said, nope, he's 6' 2" she'll be too tall, not the right genes for gymnastics.

And why would you want to throw all your chips into just a few children who fit the "mold"? Who is to say that perfect 7 year old legacy even wants to do gymnastics. There was a girl at our gym who was the prototypical perfect gymnast. She had the body type, the skill, the flexibility, the strength and the drive at 6... and when she turned 11 she refused to ever step foot in the gym again. At a gym with your philosophy that would have been quite a loss, at our gym it was no biggie because no coach threw all their eggs into that girl's basket.

Some kids excel in this sport in spite of their body types or lack of natural gifts. And some kids fail even with every gift imaginable. Some kids get the drive at 5, some at 12... Pigeon holing a child based on observations at such a young age may let a wonderful gymnast slip through your fingers.

What I love at my daughter's gym is that you would never know who is the TOPs A Camp superstar who could go elite or the kid who's working their butt off just to keep up if you just watched the attention paid by the coaches. Every kid that is on team is given the same opportunity to succeed, not just those who are deemed worthy.

**Just a quick edit to say my daughter's old gym, after we left went to an A track / B track and the biggest issue from what parents have told me is that parents of the B track don't even want to send their kids to meets because they feel they are automatically at a disadvantage to kids who are given 8 extra hours of training weekly to compete the same levels. That gym has lost 8 compulsory gymnasts since the change, all from the "B" track.