WAG Getting to NATs/NIT from regionals - rant

[bookworm]

Raising the minimum score to a 35.7 would be a start (and totally fair)...

I'm curious about this..why would an arbitrary score of 35.7 be "totally fair"? Seems kinda random to me unless there's some data to back it up. I guess my fear in changing the rules is that certain regions won't be represented hardly at all ...region 2 comes to mind with fewer gymnasts to begin with and fewer gymnasts to get the higher scores. I know the gymnasts that do make it with the minimal qualification scores don't tend to do well but it is an accomplishment that they can strive for to represent their region...if you take that potential away from them, you may lose them entirely as they may leave the sport thinking "well if they just want certain regions at JOs, then why bother?"

 

[gymgal]

I know the gymnasts that do make it with the minimal qualification scores don't tend to do well but it is an accomplishment that they can strive for to represent their region...if you take that potential away from them, you may lose them entirely as they may leave the sport thinking "well if they just want certain regions at JOs, then why bother?"

I think the point that many here are making (and I agree) is that it shouldn't be so much about about the regions but about the top gymnasts. So the gymnasts with the highest scores should be able to compete at the highest level. That's why I like the idea of setting up just one regional team across age divisions so that all regions are still represented but with fewer girls (with maybe 10-15 girls, rather than 64) and then allocating the rest of the slots according to the regions' percentage of L10 gymnasts compared to the rest of the country.

 

[bookworm]

I still think that you do see the "top gymnasts" at JOs for the most part ...I've gone to JOs since 2005 and while there are some that aren't your 36-38 AA calibre gymnasts, I haven't seen the field populated by 34 AA gymnasts either....and there are those that just have a bad day. I think a decision to change the process of who qualifies shouldn't just be seen in light of those who don't...

 

[happychaos]

I'm curious about this..why would an arbitrary score of 35.7 be "totally fair"? Seems kinda random to me unless there's some data to back it up. I guess my fear in changing the rules is that certain regions won't be represented hardly at all ...region 2 comes to mind with fewer gymnasts to begin with and fewer gymnasts to get the higher scores. I know the gymnasts that do make it with the minimal qualification scores don't tend to do well but it is an accomplishment that they can strive for to represent their region...if you take that potential away from them, you may lose them entirely as they may leave the sport thinking "well if they just want certain regions at JOs, then why bother?"

Sure, girls from low scoring regions may get frustrated if they aren't making JO's, but the same could be said of the girl scoring 37's every year and not making it either (while watching girls with 35's make it, no prob).

 

[Deleted member 14190]

I'm curious about this..why would an arbitrary score of 35.7 be "totally fair"? Seems kinda random to me unless there's some data to back it up. I guess my fear in changing the rules is that certain regions won't be represented hardly at all ...region 2 comes to mind with fewer gymnasts to begin with and fewer gymnasts to get the higher scores. I know the gymnasts that do make it with the minimal qualification scores don't tend to do well but it is an accomplishment that they can strive for to represent their region...if you take that potential away from them, you may lose them entirely as they may leave the sport thinking "well if they just want certain regions at JOs, then why bother?"

===
Well if it were up to me I would say a 36, this is Nationals after all, but I took into consideration that slightly tougher judging could be present so I reduced it by .3...
And here are the results
Level 10 region one 2014 12th place results
Jr A 36.975 (29 kids in this division scored over a 35.7 so none would be denied if more than 12 spots were given for NAT and NIT...)
Jr B 37.175 (24 kids in this division scored over a 35.7 so none would be denied if more than 12 spots were given for Nat and NIT)
Level 10 region three 2014 12th place results
Jr A 36.675 (21 Kids in this division scored over.....)
Jr B 36.2 (15 kids in this division scored over.....)
Jr C 36.4 (17 kids in this division scored over.....)
So its not an outlandish score by any standard and it appears that most of the regions are easily hitting that mark with the top 12,

...

I still think that you do see the "top gymnasts" at JOs for the most part ...I've gone to JOs since 2005 and while there are some that aren't your 36-38 AA calibre gymnasts, I haven't seen the field populated by 34 AA gymnasts either....and there are those that just have a bad day. I think a decision to change the process of who qualifies shouldn't just be seen in light of those who don't...

=====

Now I am not going to single out or pick on any particular region/child etc... , But you may want to look at 2013 regional results and then national results on your own...
.

 

[mpkbt]

Region 1 senior c 8th place 37.9
Region 2 senior c 4th place(only had 4 in age group) 34.0
Oh yeah that's fair.

 

[bookworm]

What I meant by "not seeing the field populated by 34 AA gymnasts" is that those scores didn't dominate the field , not that there weren't ever any 34s...

and coachp, thank you for your informal data survey that leads to the 35.7 as a score to achieve...I thought that that was probably how you came up with the number (or something similar).....I guess my only issue with a "new" score would be that there are states and regions that are looser/tighter with the scoring and would the new requirement lead to "look at all the girls who made it in with just a 35.7?" ...one state in our region has monster scores at states ...seems like all their girls are rock stars and getting 37s and 38s at States but when they get to regionals, you don't see that ...but if the requirement to move on were increased , would the lower scores be bumped up (because of looser judging bc of new minimum) because I'm sure regions don't want to sit back and watch other regions go to the big dance while they sit home.... maybe a solution would be to increase the number of JO qualifiers to say 10 and the next 2 to the NIT so the top 12 in an age group are at the National Meet...

I've only got a few years left to deal with this , and I'm getting old...please keep it simple

 

[profmom]

Yeah, our girls are usually warned to expect lower AA scores when they get to regionals.

I still think setting a very high (heck, let's say 37.5 or 38) automatic qualifying score and then doing an allotment for each age group for each region based on the number of gymnasts competing at regionals would go a long way toward solving this problem.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

What I meant by "not seeing the field populated by 34 AA gymnasts" is that those scores didn't dominate the field , not that there weren't ever any 34s...

and coachp, thank you for your informal data survey that leads to the 35.7 as a score to achieve...I thought that that was probably how you came up with the number (or something similar).....I guess my only issue with a "new" score would be that there are states and regions that are looser/tighter with the scoring and would the new requirement lead to "look at all the girls who made it in with just a 35.7?" ...one state in our region has monster scores at states ...seems like all their girls are rock stars and getting 37s and 38s at States but when they get to regionals, you don't see that ...but if the requirement to move on were increased , would the lower scores be bumped up (because of looser judging bc of new minimum) because I'm sure regions don't want to sit back and watch other regions go to the big dance while they sit home.... maybe a solution would be to increase the number of JO qualifiers to say 10 and the next 2 to the NIT so the top 12 in an age group are at the National Meet...

I've only got a few years left to deal with this , and I'm getting old...please keep it simple

===
Nothing will ever solve that aspect, but at the very least it would free up a couple of spots. And I am all for getting rid of NIT and just making nationals a three day meet with tons of kids, so long as they raise the minimum score.

 

[wallflower]

I like the idea of raising the minimum, but I see your point bookworm of then the judges may just score easier to make sure kids in their region are represented. I actually think it would be very interesting if for regionals (all regionals) each region was required to get judges from an outside region. It would be expensive sure, but interesting. Judges within a region have a preconceived notion already and it would be great to erase that completely.

I also really like the idea of giving each region a different number of spots based on the number of kids in each region in each level. I know some region do this for level 8 regionals. They look at the total number of kids and come up with a multiplier to divide the spots. So for example the multiplier may be .300. So if the jr b age group in region 2 has 6 kids, 2 would make it IF they met the minimum score. If region 1 jr A has 36 kids then 12 would qualify, etc.

The multiplier is slightly different each year based on the number of kids each year.

I'm all in favor of it being redone, but I'm also kind of like you bookworm and just accept it as part of how it is. Colleges definitely aren't skipping over the 37's sitting at home in favor of the 34's going to nationals. With all the technology available today they can see anyone they want regardless of making nationals or not.

 

[bogwoppit]

I like that idea Wallflower, it makes a lot of sense.

 

[skschlag]

[QUOTE="wallflower, post: 294833, member: 11734"

I also really like the idea of giving each region a different number of spots based on the number of kids in each region in each level. I know some region do this for level 8 regionals. They look at the total number of kids and come up with a multiplier to divide the spots. So for example the multiplier may be .300. So if the jr b age group in region 2 has 6 kids, 2 would make it IF they met the minimum score. If region 1 jr A has 36 kids then 12 would qualify, etc.

The multiplier is slightly different each year based on the number of kids each year.
[/QUOTE]

This is very similar to how the boys are done. There is a qualifying score, and then regions are given an allotment. Now, regions can fill their allotment with gymnasts below the qualifying score. It seems to be working for the boys. It allows the larger regions to have a proportional number of kids.

 

[htimcj]

Region 2 this year went to a percent of a percent to allot the spots for regionals. It seems to make it a bit more equitable.

 

[wandrewsjr]

Does anyone know when the Regions were drawn? Looking at the map it's like they were drawn 75 years ago, before the population of the country shifted west and south. But it can't really be that long ago.

 

[gymgal]

It's all a crap-shoot. Just looking at R8 right now. Two gymnasts in JrA and JrB, both from the same gym, only a max of a few months apart in age. One in JrB scored a 37 but did not make it(needed a 37.25) , while her teammate scored .5 lower and got in... (needed a 36.375) all because their birthdays fell just a couple months apart. It's bad enough when it happens but when it happens with your own teammate, it's that much harder to accept. And I am sure this girl will support her teammate and be happy for her but at the same time, it has to sting. Now, she did get an NIT slot, so there's still a chance to move up but still...This is why I really think it needs to be a mix of both top finishers in age divisions (to allow for differences in judging across sessions) and top AA regardless of age.

There will always be problems regardless of the system but i just seems like the current system creates way more than is necessary...

 

[wandrewsjr]

Yep, no system is perfect. But every level 10 in one region who scores a 34 goes to Nationals, while 25 level 10's in the neighboring region who scored 37+ stay home? Got to be something better than that.

 

[bogwoppit]

Yep, no system is perfect. But every level 10 in one region who scores a 34 goes to Nationals, while 25 level 10's in the neighboring region who scored 37+ stay home? Got to be something better than that.

Totally.

I am watching R7 now, after watching R2 the other day. Seeing the depth of field is a bit heart wrenching. So many awesome gymnasts with not a chance of getting there.

 

[Natasha]

It's all a crap-shoot. Just looking at R8 right now. Two gymnasts in JrA and JrB, both from the same gym, only a max of a few months apart in age. One in JrB scored a 37 but did not make it(needed a 37.25) , while her teammate scored .5 lower and got in... (needed a 36.375) all because their birthdays fell just a couple months apart. It's bad enough when it happens but when it happens with your own teammate, it's that much harder to accept. And I am sure this girl will support her teammate and be happy for her but at the same time, it has to sting. Now, she did get an NIT slot, so there's still a chance to move up but still...This is why I really think it needs to be a mix of both top finishers in age divisions (to allow for differences in judging across sessions) and top AA regardless of age.

There will always be problems regardless of the system but i just seems like the current system creates way more than is necessary...

Yep, I like the idea of the mix of age group and top AA regardless of age. I was looking at L9 yesterday and noticed the same thing- 2 girls from the same gym in different age groups, but one with barely a 35 is going to Easterns while the almost 37 stays home.

 

[NewtoGym]

Totally.

I am watching R7 now, after watching R2 the other day. Seeing the depth of field is a bit heart wrenching. So many awesome gymnasts with not a chance of getting there.

Wish we could get better coaching and programs in region 2 so our kids could compete! What's better being in a region and kid making it to nationals or moving and getting great coaching and missing nationals with a 37 Maybe "making it to nationals" isn't the end all be all. I would be happy for dd to be in a serious program with great coaching! It stinks, but it is a reality.

 

[Natasha]

Wish we could get better coaching and programs in region 2 so our kids could compete! What's better being in a region and kid making it to nationals or moving and getting great coaching and missing nationals with a 37 Maybe "making it to nationals" isn't the end all be all. I would be happy for dd to be in a serious program with great coaching! It stinks, but it is a reality.

Unfortunately, we have the worst of both here. We are in a weak state in a strong region. We have maybe on average 2 gymnasts per year go to Nationals or NIT from our state and they are usually on the other end of the state. Our state has less than 20 L10's total.