WAG Getting to NATs/NIT from regionals - rant

[gymgal]

Hmm, looking at the numbers by region, I would have thought R1 or 3 would have had the most. A bit surprising that R8 leads in numbers.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

Hmm, looking at the numbers by region, I would have thought R1 or 3 would have had the most. A bit surprising that R8 leads in numbers.

==
Yes I am hoping that they will jump on board with this, they also have a LOT of level 9's.
=
it's time so shuffle the regions around, and base it on the past 3 years of numbers.

 

[Clover]

Hmm, looking at the numbers by region, I would have thought R1 or 3 would have had the most. A bit surprising that R8 leads in numbers.

Actually, looks like Region 5 has the most.

 

[bookworm]

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.

It is tough but that's just how it is ...sometimes the numbers work in your favor and sometimes they don't. Meets all year long are similar...Suzy is 6th in one age group but she'd be the winner in another. Gymnastics competitions have been like this since my girls started in the sport in 1999..... what makes the age disparity such a big deal now as I'm sure this has been happeneing all along..

 

[Deleted member 14190]

Actually, looks like Region 5 has the most.

--
Yes regions 1 5 8 all need to lose a state.

 

[gymgal]

Actually, looks like Region 5 has the most.

oops my mistake. But my point still stands about thinking D1 or 3 would have had more, given all the gyms in CA and TX

 

[wandrewsjr]

oops my mistake. But my point still stands about thinking D1 or 3 would have had more, given all the gyms in CA and TX

It's because the rest of the states in 1 and 3 are pretty small, population wise. Region 8 has a lot of medium sized states(in addition to Florida), so they add up.

 

[my4buffaloes]

On average how many states are in each region?

 

[gymgal]

==
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.

this is done all the time at state meets. The team winners are not announced until all sessions have been completed for that level. But really, I was talking more about just having one session for the super team - 8 top scorers per region regardless of age. This would decide the national title for the regions. Then these girls would also compete in their own age divisions for individual titles. And yes, in each of these sessions, the winners would be announced. Basically, it just takes away the region titles for every age and puts that into just one session, or two if you want to go with a Jr and Sr award.

Doing it this way, you only need to make sure that each region has 8 or 16 girls, not 64. that leaves plenty if spots to divvy up among the regions however one sees fit.

If course, the easiest thing to do would just be to rework the regions. But people get really particular about their regions. It would think it would be more backlash dotting that than reworking the tournament.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

this is done all the time at state meets. The team winners are not announced until all sessions have been completed for that level. But really, I was talking more about just having one session for the super team - 8 top scorers per region regardless of age. This would decide the national title for the regions. Then these girls would also compete in their own age divisions for individual titles. And yes, in each of these sessions, the winners would be announced. Basically, it just takes away the region titles for every age and puts that into just one session, or two if you want to go with a Jr and Sr award.

Doing it this way, you only need to make sure that each region has 8 or 16 girls, not 64. that leaves plenty if spots to divvy up among the regions however one sees fit.

If course, the easiest thing to do would just be to rework the regions. But people get really particular about their regions. It would think it would be more backlash dotting that than reworking the tournament.

=
Explain a little more, I am not sure I follow what you are saying about divvy up additional spots? Because the main problem is, a region with only 140 kids should not have the same number of spots available as a region that has 200. So are you proposing same number of spots but a superteam, then top AA regardless under that?

 

[wallinbl]

I was talking more about just having one session for the super team - 8 top scorers per region regardless of age. This would decide the national title for the regions. Then these girls would also compete in their own age divisions for individual titles.

Region 8 does the 'super team' for 7/8 regionals, but the girls do not compete separately in their age groups - they compete for individual awards in the team session. Makes the individual awards harder for the team members, but easier for the age group girls (top 8 from each state are not in the age group sessions).

 

[BachFlyer]

I like the idea of having a region super team competition, top 7 juniors and top 7 seniors from each region - regardless of age group - with a minimum score of 35.5 AA. One junior super-session and one senior super session.

Then remaining 336 spots slots are then given to each region, based on their % of regional qualifiers compared to the national total. These spots would be awarded in regional rank order. You could split them into Jr and Sr as well, and make session placements totally random, or not.

Since I like math too, here is the breakdown using #s above (1431 total):

R1 = 15.7% / 53 slots
R2 = 3.5% / 12 slots **Region 2 had 34 total kids of 50 that scored above 35.5 this weekend. So they could field their super team of 14, and then fill 10 of the remaining 12 slots).
R3 = 12.7% / 43 slots
R4 = 10.4% / 35 slots
R5 = 18.3% / 61 slots
R6 = 10% / 34 slots
R7 = 11.4% / 38 slots
R8 = 18.1% / 60 slots

The great thing about doing it this way is that 1) it easier to process where the best of best the best fall using same age guidelines as elite, 2) it would be flexible for the long term, because it would adjust automatically depending on the number of regional qualifiers in each region each year, 3) each regional has something to strive for

 

[BachFlyer]

Sorry region 2 had 27 girls that hit 35.5, not 34. They could easily fill their super team of 7 Jr / 7 Sr, and have 13 girls to fill their remaining 12 spots.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

Send your idea in.

 

[gymgal]

I like the idea of having a region super team competition, top 7 juniors and top 7 seniors from each region - regardless of age group - with a minimum score of 35.5 AA. One junior super-session and one senior super session.

Then remaining 336 spots slots are then given to each region, based on their % of regional qualifiers compared to the national total. These spots would be awarded in regional rank order. You could split them into Jr and Sr as well, and make session placements totally random, or not.

Since I like math too, here is the breakdown using #s above (1431 total):

R1 = 15.7% / 53 slots
R2 = 3.5% / 12 slots **Region 2 had 34 total kids of 50 that scored above 35.5 this weekend. So they could field their super team of 14, and then fill 10 of the remaining 12 slots).
R3 = 12.7% / 43 slots
R4 = 10.4% / 35 slots
R5 = 18.3% / 61 slots
R6 = 10% / 34 slots
R7 = 11.4% / 38 slots
R8 = 18.1% / 60 slots

The great thing about doing it this way is that 1) it easier to process where the best of best the best fall using same age guidelines as elite, 2) it would be flexible for the long term, because it would adjust automatically depending on the number of regional qualifiers in each region each year, 3) each regional has something to strive for

yes, this is more like I was thinking. Divvy up the remaining spots based on a percentage of the girls in level 10 in each region. I would not give each region the same number, aside from those top 8 (or 16 if you are doing jr/sr) to field the team. This logistics would have to be ironed out. Does each region have to split the spots up evenly between the age groups prescribed by USAG or would would they go to the top scores, or a combination of the two? (say, the top 2 spots in each age group -meaning that, yes, the weaker regions would need more spots, but still not as many as now - and then it goes by top scores across all age groups).

 

[gymgal]

Region 8 does the 'super team' for 7/8 regionals, but the girls do not compete separately in their age groups - they compete for individual awards in the team session. Makes the individual awards harder for the team members, but easier for the age group girls (top 8 from each state are not in the age group sessions).

there you go, even better in terms of time management. I didn't know this. I know for Xcel regionals, the girls competed on the state team and again for individual competition. USAG could easily do it this way for 9/10 as well.

 

[Natasha]

yes, this is more like I was thinking. Divvy up the remaining spots based on a percentage of the girls in level 10 in each region. I would not give each region the same number, aside from those top 8 (or 16 if you are doing jr/sr) to field the team. This logistics would have to be ironed out. Does each region have to split the spots up evenly between the age groups prescribed by USAG or would would they go to the top scores, or a combination of the two? (say, the top 2 spots in each age group -meaning that, yes, the weaker regions would need more spots, but still not as many as now - and then it goes by top scores across all age groups).

So basically the same idea as Region 8 Level 7/8?
The only downside I see is that it would be harder for the girls on the "super team" to place well individually as you would have the top 8 all in one session, where they would likely each place on the podium in their individual age groups, but could end up not placing at all because they are competing against the very best of the best. So would they also compete in their own age groups and do two separate competitions?

 

[Deleted member 14190]

yes, this is more like I was thinking. Divvy up the remaining spots based on a percentage of the girls in level 10 in each region. I would not give each region the same number, aside from those top 8 (or 16 if you are doing jr/sr) to field the team. This logistics would have to be ironed out. Does each region have to split the spots up evenly between the age groups prescribed by USAG or would would they go to the top scores, or a combination of the two? (say, the top 2 spots in each age group -meaning that, yes, the weaker regions would need more spots, but still not as many as now - and then it goes by top scores across all age groups).

==
Percentage is fine, however look at this http://www.mymeetscores.com/meet.pl?meetid=47666&pb=N&ts=&level=10 then tell me where do you draw the line... Answer, disperse the regions, and increase the sessions at NAT.
Or create two new regions.

 

[Natasha]

--
Yes regions 1 5 8 all need to lose a state.

I am in favor of R8 losing a state

 

[gymgal]

So basically the same idea as Region 8 Level 7/8?
The only downside I see is that it would be harder for the girls on the "super team" to place well individually as you would have the top 8 all in one session, where they would likely each place on the podium in their individual age groups, but could end up not placing at all because they are competing against the very best of the best. So would they also compete in their own age groups and do two separate competitions?

I personally would prefer they compete in both the team comp and the individual one. But us that's nit possible due to timing (can only fit so many sessions in a weekend), then they would have the distinction of saying they were on the region __ national team. And they can always make the choice to decline the team spot in favor if the individual meet.