WAG Getting to NATs/NIT from regionals - rant

[wallinbl]

I would think the correct solution is a reorg of the regional structure, if there are huge discrepancies between the numbers of gymnasts. That would be easier and more "fair" than various other mechanisms for finding equity in the current imbalance.

The minimum score requirements are only marginally useful. One of the above suggestions, pulling in judges from various regions might mitigate this to some extent (there are four judges, pull each from a different region), but it still doesn't deal with the fact that it's not all that useful to compare scores that came from different judges. As much as there are standards for deductions, it's like the baseball strike zone - different for everyone.

 

[Bess]

As a newbie, could I propose a very subjective question? What are considered the most competitive regions? I would imagine whichever ones CA and TX are in but I don't know for sure...

 

[Gymkateer]

I feel bad that Newtogym has to feel this way...I think that in all this discussion about who got shorted by not making it to JOs with the current system of qualification in place, that we should be mindful of the fact that there are regions , like Newtogym's, who play by the rules and have kids qualify... and to make them feel like they are not worthy of their spot because Suzy from a bigger region did not, is wrong. The kids and parents read these forums and it would be heartbreaking to me reading some of the things written if I were one of the kids (or parent of) who made it from the regions with the lower scores...

I've looked at a lot of the regional results and I can kind of guess which region Coachp has an issue with , but my issue is that these are the rules now, and these smaller regions have not violated them so it would be nice if we could just back off and celebrate these accomplishments, without making them feel like they're second class.

I think these gymnasts already know how they measure up based on their scores. They aren't finding out about it on a message board. To me, it doesn't matter. Some people feel like these meets are about "the best gymnasts". Personally, I feel they are about "the best gymnasts from all over the country." Not just certain places. That's why the qualifier is set up the way it is.

A meet that's about "the best gymnasts" would qualify the way US elites qualify to elite. A qualifying score is set and the gymnast goes to one or more qualifying meets to try and get that score. The gymnast can qualify at a meet on the other side of the country from where they live. If JO nationals went that route, it could work out fine. It would probably work even better if they get rid of the teams entirely. If not, people might have a harder time accepting that change from a meet where every region sends a team to a a meet where only the best gymnasts go. Just do away with the concept of the gymnasts representing a region or team and send them as individuals.

Then perhaps the stronger regions need to be allocated more spots.

I hear you about weaker regions, but we are talking about kids scoring 37+ and staying home.

I think the issue of giving them more spots runs into the same problem. Who has to vote for that? Wouldn't the gymnasts from weaker regions have even less chance to win because now they are up against a greater number of stronger gymnasts.

I honestly don't have a problem with the kid with a 37 staying home. Not as long as qualifying is about placements by region. They could change the rules, so that only the best gymnasts go and that would also be fine with me. The hybrid system where better regions get more spots is how the qualifying for Olympic gymnastics works. Better countries qualify a team and get 5 spots. Lesser countries can get two or three spots, I think. Individuals can earn a spot for themselves. Of course, people still get mad that the top countries only get Five spots and somebody with less skill gets to go to the Olympics. I'm certain the same would be true if JO Nationals had that sort of qualifying structure.

 

[bogwoppit]

Yes the regions should be represented, but it should be done by a %. It would be so easy to say "you have X number of JNR A therefore you get to send X number to NAT/NIT who score at least 36AA.".

I do not see why this is complicated, or why the regions should be having a say in reorganisation. The system currently does not represent the country fairly and it really is not so difficult to change.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

I guess an analogy wold be..... What if you were in sales and you get a 10K bonus each year for being at the top of your regional sales force, AWESOME! You sell over one million units every year, but fall short of making the top 6 sales people in your region because you have 50 sales people in your region and the market is saturated, so,,,, no bonus. But meanwhile the sales people in another region sell half of what you do and make the top 6 and to further irritate you they only have 6 sales people to begin with, so each year those 6 people get an extra 10K and the minimum to get that 10K bonus is 100,000 units sold... .

 

[coachmolly]

Yes the regions should be represented, but it should be done by a %. It would be so easy to say "you have X number of JNR A therefore you get to send X number to NAT/NIT who score at least 36AA.".

I do not see why this is complicated, or why the regions should be having a say in reorganisation. The system currently does not represent the country fairly and it really is not so difficult to change.

I agree, it is the logical way to go, however Region 2 would not have a high enough % to field a team in some age groups (I think sometimes Region 4 would struggle as well). So while they would be represented, they would not be able to participate in the team competition, which is also not fair. It's not the fault of the kids that they come from a sparsely populated region.

 

[gracyomalley]

Just got back from boys regionals....don't know if this is relevant, but our team generally scored same or less than a point lower than at state - so I figure regional scoring was appropriately tight but our state did a good job at setting the scores to be reflective of the playing field. In our region our state has the 2nd largest number of boys gymnasts....so as a microcosm of the nation, bigger (although we are in a smaller region).

There were many kids who had qualified for regionals with the required score but scored up to 10 points lower at regionals (I know, my DS youngest barely qualified at our state meet - and was smack in the middle of the pack at regionals...). This was qualifying purely on a set score, so based upon the above discussions should have been more fair....but obviously some of the other states set the bar quite a bit lower at their state meet...

And you know what, I've lived in one of those tiny states whose qualifying athletes really struggled - and frankly, I complain about how few choices my kids have here (no TOPS, no elite, no option of boys training more than 12 hours a week - ever - within 200 miles, or girls more than 20....) - but I know how truely difficult in these smaller states it is to even pursue gymnastics....I am pleased as punch for those kids to be there...and every once in a while one of them will be truely talented and need the chance to see the "competition" out there...can't reach for the stars if you don't know they are there.

Yeah, it would bug me if my kid were the JR A with the 37 sitting at home...but then, there are no Jr As in my state at L10.....I'm hoping my kids can find adequate coaching and gym time with direction to be able to continue in gym as long as they want....

I do think redistribution of the regions to be more population based would be great - and I would love to see our teams with more competition - we already have to fly to many meets due to geography so distances have become less of an issue (as the kids move into higher level/optionals).

I don't think you'll ever see the same number of high scores from a region with simply less opportunity within 100s of miles even when you have the same number of athletes there....to be really accomplished in this sport takes such dedication and so much work at such young ages, plus really requires good coaching - you don't "wing it" into L10 - it will continue to be a sport dominated by the more wealthy from urban centers....that's just how the cookie crumbles.

If its a regional/National competition it really would require that kids from all regions have an opportunity. The powerhouse regions will generally win - the others will have a star athlete here and there. If what people want is a clearing house for top scorers to show their stuff (and there's nothing wrong with that, by the way...) then the whole system needs to be changed....colleges will spend far more time looking at the kids coming up in known big name gyms/regions, anyway than Suzy from po-dunk USA who got a 36 at regionals because her gym doesn't have a coach who ever trained a L10 before....

 

[gasrgoose]

Point #2: I don't see the Canadians and British (and other countries ) at our JOs but they are on NCAA teams all over the place...

This is an interesting example. Most of these girls get noticed when they are representing their countries in international competitions. Countries that are much weaker in gymnastics than the USA. Kinda like some regions are much weaker. That's not to say they don't deserve a chance at a NCAA scholarship. But they get much more recognition competing internationally than some girls from the USA. Would these girls have made the national team in the USA? Would UCLA, Utah, Alabama, Florida, etc have offered these girls scholarships if they hadn't competed internationally? Maybe, but there's no doubt the extra exposure greatly increased their chances. And it's the same at JO nationals, the exposure to greater competition helps strengthen a gymnasts, the exposure helps motivate, the exposure gets them noticed.

Remember how most of us felt when Jordan didn't make the All around finals in London, because of the 2 gymnasts per country rule. Yea, that's how these girls with 37's feel today! For some gymnasts, competing at JO Nationals, is their Olympics and it's ridiculous that a girl with a 34 could take their spot. Yes it will be sad for the girl with the 34 when she doesn't make it, but the reality is the kid with the 37 deserves the opportunity more.

 

[bogwoppit]

I agree, it is the logical way to go, however Region 2 would not have a high enough % to field a team in some age groups (I think sometimes Region 4 would struggle as well). So while they would be represented, they would not be able to participate in the team competition, which is also not fair. It's not the fault of the kids that they come from a sparsely populated region.

Then change the way "team" is defined.

ETA - In the same way some regions are not gym regions, some regions are not ski racer regions. Our tiny high school has more Olympians as alumni than most high schools in the whole if the US per capita. That is because it is a ski resort.

Sports geography is just what it is, and loading the regions is not the solution. Moving or changing sports might be.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

Hi everyone, first off, we are not sending Anonymous letters, so please use a legit email and include your real name and that your child does in fact currently compete at some level,
Obviously you don't have to put your child name down. Keep in mind that these people have dedicated themselves to this sport, they are wonderful people and are already in support of some type of change. Please be factual and feel free to put any type of statistics that you want, I know some of you like doing that stuff so now is your chance!
Subject, NIT / NAT / Western / Eastern Qualification process
TO; Shane Mcintyre,
Here is a link to the regional board members page with emails. Please keep in mind that Shane has volunteered to take this on, so send him your emails, and CC another rep if you happen to KNOW THEM. (in other words I don't want to be responsible for flooding everyones email boxes) http://www.region-one-gymnastics.com/board/board.html If you live on the east coast please feel free to CC a person on the regional board of your choice. (perhaps someone here can provide the different links to those, but if you google region 7 gymnastics etc... you will find the info). You can CC your state board rep as well.
My name is Perry , and I absolutely DID clear this with Shane and Dan just yesterday. Please do not send any negative emails to other regions (FYI, I heard region 2 is IN SUPPORT of raising the minimum score last year, so they did not vote it down, that is what I heard).
You do not need a child in level 9 or 10 at this time, remember this is to help each and every child in the future which includes all current compulsory kids.

Please type in your own words what you think about the current system and what you would like to see happen.
Please pass this on to anyone on your team who is in support and would like to send out an email.

Several potential solutions, feel free to add your own ideas.
1. Raise the minimum to a 35.7 or whatever
2. Reorganize the regions bases on the numbers and strength of upper levels
3. Go by a percentage
4. Create an East and West Superteam and pull top scores.
5. Get rid of NIT and create a 3 day National meet with more kids.
6. And Anything else you suggest

 

[bogwoppit]

Hi everyone, first off, we are not sending Anonymous letters, so please use a legit email and include your real name and that your child does in fact currently compete at some level,
Obviously you don't have to put your child name down. Keep in mind that these people have dedicated themselves to this sport, they are wonderful people and are already in support of some type of change. Please be factual and feel free to put any type of statistics that you want, I know some of you like doing that stuff so now is your chance!
Subject, NIT / NAT / Western / Eastern Qualification process
TO; Shane Mcintyre,
Here is a link to the regional board members page with emails. Please keep in mind that Shane has volunteered to take this on, so send him your emails, and CC another rep if you happen to KNOW THEM. (in other words I don't want to be responsible for flooding everyones email boxes) http://www.region-one-gymnastics.com/board/board.html If you live on the east coast please feel free to CC a person on the regional board of your choice. (perhaps someone here can provide the different links to those, but if you google region 7 gymnastics etc... you will find the info). You can CC your state board rep as well.
My name is Perry , and I absolutely DID clear this with Shane and Dan just yesterday. Please do not send any negative emails to other regions (FYI, I heard region 2 is IN SUPPORT of raising the minimum score last year, so they did not vote it down, that is what I heard).
You do not need a child in level 9 or 10 at this time, remember this is to help each and every child in the future which includes all current compulsory kids.

Please type in your own words what you think about the current system and what you would like to see happen.
Please pass this on to anyone on your team who is in support and would like to send out an email.

Several potential solutions, feel free to add your own ideas.
1. Raise the minimum to a 35.7 or whatever
2. Reorganize the regions bases on the numbers and strength of upper levels
3. Go by a percentage
4. Create an East and West Superteam and pull top scores.
5. Get rid of NIT and create a 3 day National meet with more kids.
6. And Anything else you suggest

Coachp can I also ask you to start another thread as well to highlight this alone and so it does not get lost in the mix of 6 pages here.

 

[wandrewsjr]

Did some very quick research and math(so numbers might not be exact) but here is the number of level 10's that each Region had competing at their Regional championships this weekend:

Region 1 - 225
Region 2 - 50
Region 3 - 181
Region 4 - 149
Region 5 - 261
Region 6 - 143
Region 7 - 163
Region 8 - 259

I don't think it is insulting to the gymnasts and families of Region 2(or others) to point out that this numbers disparity isn't fair and needs to be corrected. Every gymnast in Region 2 that gets a 34 goes to Nationals(unless they happen to be in an age group that has 8 or 9 kids, then a couple with 35's might stay home some years) while in the larger Regions dozens of kids with 37's stay home. These are the numbers, they aren't insults.

And I completely disagree with the notion expressed in the thread that the smaller Regions wouldn't be open to redistribution that would even out the numbers(and would essentially mean their current gymnasts would get fewer spots). I know, at least in one Region's case, THEY ARE.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

Now this has nothing to do with the subject, but just look at this,,, and no the scoring was not easy, they were that amazing,,, http://www.mymeetscores.com/meet.pl...ssion=8R&level=10&division=Sr.C&gymnastid=-99

 

[gymgal]

I agree, it is the logical way to go, however Region 2 would not have a high enough % to field a team in some age groups (I think sometimes Region 4 would struggle as well). So while they would be represented, they would not be able to participate in the team competition, which is also not fair. It's not the fault of the kids that they come from a sparsely populated region.

then get away from the age division teams and just field a smaller, top-scores-across-age-division team of 8, 10, or 15. Whatever. It would allow for every region to be well represented for the team aspect. Then the remaining spots get divided more equitably. I just do not see the value in all the National team awards by age groups. Oooo, R5 won the Jr A division! Yeah, so, R1 won the JrC. Really? Petty. Just have one national award or have 2 using Jr and Sr teams. Having 8 is really over the top.

 

[shelovestoflip]

What about a percentage? That would address the issue of harder/easier scoring. Maybe top 25% with a minimum score of 35?

Still not perfect, but better than a set number per region. I agree the minimum score is too low for nationals.

So I'm trying to follow this thread but I"m a little confused...sorry!
My daughter is Level 9 and missed Regionals (34. qualification) by .3 She was OK with it...she gets what seh needs to work on. So, is it the same in all Regions that to make it to Regionals you need a 34. at States or is each region different??

Then from what I understand, at Level 9 in Region 6, the top 6 in each age group made it to Nationals. I looked at scores and they seemed to be at least 36s??

So, am I understanding correctly that in some other Regions, the top 6 have lower scores? Or higher scores but don't make it??

What about the way it works for Level 8 Regionals (in Region 6 anyway) there are Top 7 (8?) AA scores for one team, then Top 8 each age group and then the other number a % of %??

Why are 9/10 not this way??

Sorry, I'm just trying to figure it out!

However I agree, I think it's tough when a kid misses Easterns/Nationals with a higher score than another girl just because they are in a different age group.

 

[shelovestoflip]

Now this has nothing to do with the subject, but just look at this,,, and no the scoring was not easy, they were that amazing,,, http://www.mymeetscores.com/meet.pl...ssion=8R&level=10&division=Sr.C&gymnastid=-99

OK, so I randomly clicked on a Level 9 girl....one of the lowest scoring at Regionals.....to see what her other scores were this season. And they were LOW. As in 29/30/31. Though she somehow managed a 34 at her States and qualified to Regionals. What's up with that? That totally doesn't seem fair/right!!

 

[bogwoppit]

Region 1 - 225
Region 2 - 50
Region 3 - 181
Region 4 - 149
Region 5 - 261
Region 6 - 143
Region 7 - 163
Region 8 - 259

That is exactly why it needs fixing. Not to make some regions unhappy, but to make it fair across the country. NO way should one region have 50 kids and another 261. That is 100% fixable with the stroke of a pen.

 

[bogwoppit]

OK, so I randomly clicked on a Level 9 girl....one of the lowest scoring at Regionals.....to see what her other scores were this season. And they were LOW. As in 29/30/31. Though she somehow managed a 34 at her States and qualified to Regionals. What's up with that? That totally doesn't seem fair/right!!

I checked a few too and it looked as though their gym had an in house meet to get them to 10 in time for states, they squeaked in to regionals and then squeaked to NATs.

 

[wandrewsjr]

Now this has nothing to do with the subject, but just look at this,,, and no the scoring was not easy, they were that amazing,,, http://www.mymeetscores.com/meet.pl...ssion=8R&level=10&division=Sr.C&gymnastid=-99

Yep, and these girls are all graduating Seniors, so this was their last chance to "make the big show". And I think the top 13 or so all have full scholarships to division 1 schools already, so this isn't about being seen by college coaches. I think we have to ask ourselves, what is the purpose of Nationals? If the purpose of Nationals is to bring together all of the top gymnasts in the country for one, season ending competition, then we are failing.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

then get away from the age division teams and just field a smaller, top-scores-across-age-division team of 8, 10, or 15. Whatever. It would allow for every region to be well represented for the team aspect. Then the remaining spots get divided more equitably. I just do not see the value in all the National team awards by age groups. Oooo, R5 won the Jr A division! Yeah, so, R1 won the JrC. Really? Petty. Just have one national award or have 2 using Jr and Sr teams. Having 8 is really over the top.

==
You have to run a session of kids through, having more than one session and then deciding a winner usually doesn't fly. So at the end of each session you need a conclusion, otherwise you will actually have less kids at nationals.