WAG Getting to NATs/NIT from regionals - rant

[happychaos]

So, for those of us who are not familiar with regions outside our own, would anyone care to give their opinion on which regions are the strongest/weakest/middle etc?

 

[Gymmonkeymomma]

Back in level 8, DD had personal best AA of 37+ and still did not make regionals. Tough sell to an 11 year old. Now on the eve of her first L10 Regionals, she is once again facing that dreaded Jr A, knowing that she will likely need 37+ for a shot at NIT. Meanwhile the 7th place R2 girl scored 34.05.... Such imbalance..

At minimum, it would be a good start to raise the qualifying score so it is higher than score needed to make Regionals. Just like the Regional minimum was higher than qualifying score to make States, etc. just my 2 cents.

 

[flippin out]

I have been undergoing an education today, an education in how messed up the system for getting to NAT/NIT for L10's is.

I now realise that many girls will be staying at home with 37's from R7, and the like, whilst girls from R2, and the like, will be going with 34's.

This is just wrong in so many ways. I cannot believe that this system cannot be fixed, adjust the regions, have a required score for qualification etc etc.

Call me the Devil's Advocate here......but there are certain Regions (and States within the Regions) who are known for either inflating scores or being extremely stingy. I have seen routines that look almost identical score a 35 in one State/Region and then score at 37 at another Region/State. Not sure that it would be fair to punish the girls in the "low scoring regions" just because their judges are stingy and make them work very hard to score a 36 and then reward girls in the inflated Regions that can throw an "ok" meet and get a 37.
I really don't think that there is a 'perfect' system. It just kind of is what it is and not sure that any changes would necessarily be for the better or not? Just throwing it out there......now I will duck and run for cover

 

[bogwoppit]

As I said to a parent today, it will all become clear at Nationals.

The scores will be public and we will all know if regions got a gift, or not.

 

[flippingtogether]

OK, as someone who doesn't know much about optionals this seems like a huge imbalance/seems like the system doesn't work.
Two questions:
1. In layman's/simple terms - who qualifies for the L10 Nationals and who qualifies for NITs?
How do L9s qualify for the next level? [I searched my region's site for this info, and also googled it, and it still isn't clear to me.]
2. What about if the system is more like the US House of Reps - more heavily populated areas send more girls, and less heavily send less? And it gets re-assessed every so often? I can think of another sport where the US Nationals is the top 100 in the sport, and they take a lot from CA, a lot from the NE, not so many from the Midwest, and so on.....no one complains about that system.
[thank you in advance for any enlightenment you can provide.....]

 

[flippingtogether]

I just found this info on a recent thread about the NIT:
2 per age group go to NIT. So 8th and 9th AA (or 9th and 10th if the 8th got a spot at JOs from another region, on down the line). Regional event champions also qualify to NIT if they didn't in the AA.
So is the NIT a lot smaller than L10 Nationals??

 

[3rd_time_around]

Region 8 has 1 session just for Level 10 Jr A. A whole session! And only 7 get to go. It's not fair.

Here's how it works--based on last year's placement at Nationals, the Region that doesn't have enough gymnasts to fill the 7 spots (which being from R8, that blows my mind), has the spots filled with girls from the Region that won last year. So last year, R8 sent 9 gymnasts from Jr A because they won in 2012, and some other region didn't have enough Jr A's to fill the roster. Again, in a region that has a session just for Jr A, I can't fathom not having enough Jr A gymnasts to make a team of 7.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

I have been undergoing an education today, an education in how messed up the system for getting to NAT/NIT for L10's is.

I now realise that many girls will be staying at home with 37's from R7, and the like, whilst girls from R2, and the like, will be going with 34's.

This is just wrong in so many ways. I cannot believe that this system cannot be fixed, adjust the regions, have a required score for qualification etc etc.

==
FYI just so ya know, they DID vote on it just this past summer. The proposed solution was to raise the minimum score to a 36 (if I remember correct, could of been lower). And of course... the rest of the regions VOTED it down.... Believe me, when I go to Westerns each year and see an average of 75 plus kids who score below a 35.5, it really angers me... So they did try but unfortunately each region has a vote....

 

[Deleted member 14190]

It is, pure and simple, a HUGE numbers imbalance. 50 level 10's in the smallest Region, 250-300 in the largest. They had to draw the regions for the first time at some point based on balancing the population and geography. I don't understand why they couldn't rebalance the Regions every couple decades.

==
BECAUSE THE OTHER REGIONS DON"T WANT MORE KIDS.... understand now.... it is a problem.

 

[3rd_time_around]

==
BECAUSE THE OTHER REGIONS DON"T WANT MORE KIDS.... understand now.... it is a problem.

I think it's more that the other regions want to make sure their girls get to go even if they barely meet the score minimum, and won't be competitive.

 

[wandrewsjr]

==
BECAUSE THE OTHER REGIONS DON"T WANT MORE KIDS.... understand now.... it is a problem.

==
BECAUSE THE OTHER REGIONS DON"T WANT MORE KIDS.... understand now.... it is a problem.

But I was under the impression that Region 2 wants NorCal(to help balance the numbers between Reg 1 and 2), but it is NorCal that is hesitant about moving Regions.

 

[wandrewsjr]

==
FYI just so ya know, they DID vote on it just this past summer. The proposed solution was to raise the minimum score to a 36 (if I remember correct, could of been lower). And of course... the rest of the regions VOTED it down.... Believe me, when I go to Westerns each year and see an average of 75 plus kids who score below a 35.5, it really angers me... So they did try but unfortunately each region has a vote....

I think changing the score would not solve the core problem, which might be why it was voted down. If JOs and Westerns are going to involve a Regional team competition than each Region SHOULD get the bring their top 7 ( or 12) kids, even if that 7th place kid is only scoring 34/35. A vote to raise the score to 36 is also a vote to essentially eliminate the Regional Team competition, because a couple of Regions would rarely be able to field teams with that Q score. That might have been too much change with one vote for some.

 

[profmom]

Ha, maybe the boys' side has it right on this one. There is an automatic qualification score for each level (which is ridiculously high and will only produce a few qualifiers in each region), and then the national office counts up the number of boys who've qualified for regionals in each region. They then send out an allotment to each region based on the number of regional qualifiers at levels 8 (they can go at 8), 9, and 10. After they've competed, they just count down the AA scores until the allotment is filled.

 

[Dka]

At the level our level 8 states the 8 th place score was a 37.5 in jr A to advance to regionals, but the 8 th place score in the other age groups was lower... So you had girls that did not get to go to regionals with a 37.4, and girls who got to go with a 36.2 all from the same gym.... I think it is just part of the sport. Seems jr A is the toughest! I feel that my dd will be in that group for atleast a few years. I thought it evened out at level 10....

 

[flippin out]

I think changing the score would not solve the core problem, which might be why it was voted down. If JOs and Westerns are going to involve a Regional team competition than each Region SHOULD get the bring their top 7 ( or 12) kids, even if that 7th place kid is only scoring 34/35. A vote to raise the score to 36 is also a vote to essentially eliminate the Regional Team competition, because a couple of Regions would rarely be able to field teams with that Q score. That might have been too much change with one vote for some.

I agree for another reason.......If they raise the min score, the judges at those regionals that tend to score lower will just relax a bit and raise the scores so that they have enough kids to send to Nationals. I mean really, there truly is no perfect way to do this. Just have to be big girls and deal with how it is......whatever that happens to be. These girls have been in it long enough at this level to understand how it is. I think sometimes it's the parents that can't deal, not the kids.

 

[bogwoppit]

They could also rejig the regions, it gets done in Quebec yearly when the actual gymnast numbers come in. A few adjustments and each region has the same number of kids at each level. Some regions would be much larger geographically, but the chance of making regionals would be the same for every child.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

I think changing the score would not solve the core problem, which might be why it was voted down. If JOs and Westerns are going to involve a Regional team competition than each Region SHOULD get the bring their top 7 ( or 12) kids, even if that 7th place kid is only scoring 34/35. A vote to raise the score to 36 is also a vote to essentially eliminate the Regional Team competition, because a couple of Regions would rarely be able to field teams with that Q score. That might have been too much change with one vote for some.

==
No, they take the kids from other regions who hit the minimum score and fill the regional team.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

But I was under the impression that Region 2 wants NorCal(to help balance the numbers between Reg 1 and 2), but it is NorCal that is hesitant about moving Regions.

=
Not sure, I will ask the powers that be today. But if that is the case, I can only assume that they want to remain in 1 because the competition is more.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

At the level our level 8 states the 8 th place score was a 37.5 in jr A to advance to regionals, but the 8 th place score in the other age groups was lower... So you had girls that did not get to go to regionals with a 37.4, and girls who got to go with a 36.2 all from the same gym.... I think it is just part of the sport. Seems jr A is the toughest! I feel that my dd will be in that group for atleast a few years. I thought it evened out at level 10....

==
yes that is apples to apples, but when you have 200 level 10's in one region all competing for the exact same number of spots as another region that only has 52 level 10's it becomes a problem. Those kids from the 52 region are 4 times more likely to qualify because of the low numbers.

 

[bookworm]

==
yes that is apples to apples, but when you have 200 level 10's in one region all competing for the exact same number of spots as another region that only has 52 level 10's it becomes a problem. Those kids from the 52 region are 4 times more likely to qualify because of the low numbers.[/QUOTE]

This whole scenario just plays into the crazy gym parent thing...i'm surprised that CGPs with kids in the more populated regions don't move to the less populated ones so their kids could qualify....