WAG Getting to NATs/NIT from regionals - rant

[gymgal]

I am in favor of R8 losing a state

and which state would that be?

 

[Natasha]

and which state would that be?

Any one of the 3 power states I would volunteer our state to move, but it wouldn't do much to even out the numbers.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

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...

go to 5/10/2013 and click on the results for level 10 nationals.

http://usagym.org/pages/results/index.html

 

[Deleted member 14190]

go to 5/10/2013 and click on the results for level 10 nationals.

http://usagym.org/pages/results/index.html

=
Dont forget to look at 2013 NIT as well, and then you will get the full scope of the problem. meaning, compare the top NIT kids to the NAT field.

 

[bogwoppit]

Yeah that is a bit depressing. There is a seriously huge overlap of NAT and NIT girls.

I guess the good thing is both groups get to be seen by college coaches.

The bad thing is we know a ton were just sitting at home with way better scores.

 

[shelovestoflip]

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..

Yes definitely, the age groups are like this at meets all season! I've been following this thread and now I forget what the issue was to begin with?!!

 

[bookworm]

=
Dont forget to look at 2013 NIT as well, and then you will get the full scope of the problem. meaning, compare the top NIT kids to the NAT field.

I don't really think that just looking at the scores tells the whole story...we had a girl in our region a few years ago who won everything every where she went, until Regionals ....at regionals she had FOUR falls off bars and barely made the NIT that year ...and when she got to the NIT , and had pulled herself back together, she won the whole thing....but if you just looked at her body of scores you would think, why was she only NIT (as she's been at JOs many times)? The NIT gives girls who wouldn't have competed in the past a chance to compete, and shine.

 

[3rd_time_around]

actually, it us not as bad as it first seems. Here is the link for the region 8 breakdown. For whatever reason, they put the Jr A in their own session, but there are only 35 (yes, I know the word 'only' is relative here) Jr b has 40 and is own session as well. I am not sure why they choose to do that because all the other sessions have 2 age divisions but it could have been that they couldn't get the numbers to work any other way. The range is 23-40. http://www.region8gymnastics.org/article/view/id/558

Yes, I'm aware because our gym has girls competing these, and actually had 2 Jr As and a Jr B qualify. Of course, those three are training elite, which opens up another can of worms about elite/HOPES qualifiers (or formerly) who train 50% longer per week than most others but get to compete against them. They definitely have an advantage. More parts of this sport that don't sit well if you dwell on it.

 

[3rd_time_around]

I th

I don't think it's so much a CGM thing because the coaches are bothered by it too. I think it's an exposure and recognition thing. Especially for girls looking for college scholarships. Those tournaments are where they get seen. And are great to place on your gymnastics resume. Scoring a 37+ at regionals and not being able to go to nationals because the regions have to be equally represented really stinks...

Why not get rid of the team age division competition at nationals and do it like many of the L8 regionals are doimg? There is just one state winner. Not a winner for each age division. Each region fields a team of 8 (or whatever number the powers that be see fit) across all age groups. Then the remaining spots are allocated per region based on a percentage of the number of gymnasts making it to regionals that year.

From there, it could be a few different ways.
- the top scores regardless of age groups
- the spots are divided evenly among the age groups
- the top 3 in each age group get in and the rest of the spots go to the highest scores regardless of age (I personally prefer this because we all know that judging changes between sessions - whether it's different judges, fatigue, better understanding of level of competition, etc. making sure girls aren't penalized because they were first session of the meet is important. But it also allows girls with high scores in the stronger age divisions a shot at picking up a spot)

There will always be problems with the system, but the powers that be really need to take a closer look at this so that we don't have so many excellent gymnasts staying home when there are others who are barely making the minimal requirement getting spots.

ink you're confused. Level 8 isn't doing away with age groups. Just the top 8 get to be the level 8 State Team and compete against the other State teams in their region at regionals. There are still all the age groups, this is just a special honor.

 

[gymgal]

I th

ink you're confused. Level 8 isn't doing away with age groups. Just the top 8 get to be the level 8 State Team and compete against the other State teams in their region at regionals. There are still all the age groups, this is just a special honor.

no, I am not confused. I think you may have misunderstood my post. What region 8 does is basically what I would like to see at nationals. As it stands right now, every age division at nationals holds a national region title. R1 wins JrA but R5 wins JrB. I would prefer to see just one super team for determining which region wins across all age groups (as in region 8, L7/8), or have Jr and Sr region winners. Then all of the girls compete as individuals in their own age division to determine individual winners. (just as region 8 does it)

 

[Deleted member D3987]

and NIT was started BECAUSE there were so many athletes. and those athletes that would NOT be seen by college coaches. opportunity is now there for both groups and the college coaches already know what kids crapped on themselves at Regionals and made NIT's and the others that may have had the MEET OF THEIR LIFE and are in the "Nationals" division. the college coaches aren't stupid. they know who everyone is.

and as i have stated before, they really aren't concerned with how they do at this meet (seniors). they are there looking at 8th and 9th graders and others younger coming up. maybe there are those out there that have a problem with that. but this is the system we have and it won't change anytime soon.

and before you all may send emails, you need to seriously consider what i have told you. if USAG changes things to accommodate what you think would be better, i'm telling you that only 6-8 states will be represented. understand? if the state of Wyoming has no 10's, then they have no 10's. and there are many more states that have no 10's than the 6-8 that do. it is the lack of 10's in demographic/region areas that cause the issue. NOT the way the system is.

and as i compared, if Illinois were moved to Region 4 as was discussed a couple of years ago, what do you all think it would mean for Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska and Missouri? look how many 10's they have and then compare their top 7 in each age group to those from Illinois at either their State or Regional meet.

those from Hawaii already have a huge disadvantage. look at their numbers. then look at Region 2's. and they have to come "in country" to even compete. and along with all those expenses required to come mainland. if they were put in Region 1 for example, NO ONE from Hawaii would make it out of Regionals because Region 1's numbers are so overwhelming.

honestly folks, think serious before you start sending out emails. be careful what you wish for...

 

[txgymfan]

The simple question is should Nationals represent the highest scoring JO gymnasts in the country or should every effort be made to include the best of each region? There is no fair answer. If we change the system to include more of the highest scoring gymnasts nationwide more states will be left our of the highest level of competition. If the system is left as is then more states and regions will be represented and it will be a truer national competition but some higher level gymnasts may never get to Nationals.


Dunno, I understand what you are saying. Do you think if the system is changed it will discourage gymnastics in unrepresented regions (or states) ?

 

[exgymnastmomx3]

, I am responding to Dunno's statement about moving Illinois to Wisconsin. We are from Wisconsin. YES, we need the extra kids and competition. We know that as many of our kids aren't going to make it. That's GOOD! We can't dumb everyone down-we need to step it up!!! Let them know what they are against! It makes everyone better!

 

[Gymmonkeymomma]

Yes, I'm aware because our gym has girls competing these, and actually had 2 Jr As and a Jr B qualify. Of course, those three are training elite, which opens up another can of worms about elite/HOPES qualifiers (or formerly) who train 50% longer per week than most others but get to compete against them. They definitely have an advantage. More parts of this sport that don't sit well if you dwell on it.

Yes, you may have just unleashed another can of worms.....lol.... (Signed mom of Jr A who trains "regular" amount of hours). Too much thinking can turn a semi-reasonable person into a CGM!!!

 

[Deleted member D3987]

no, I am not confused. I think you may have misunderstood my post. This is exactly what I would like to see at nationals. As it stands right now, every age group holds a national team title. I would prefer to see just one super team for determining which region wins across all age groups (as in region 8, L7/8), or have Jr and Sr title winners. Then all of the girls compete as individuals in their own age division to determine individual winners.

but you know our society has changed. EVERYONE must win something! imagine that we have to go down 30 percent for awards. so if there are 80 kids in an age group, we go down to 24th place.

honestly folks, if myself or my sister or my wife brought home ribbons for 24th place, regardless of the level (except the Olympics or Worlds) those ribbons would have never made the mantle. more, under the mantle where the fireplace was burning. lol.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

The simple question is should Nationals represent the highest scoring JO gymnasts in the country or should every effort be made to include the best of each region? There is no fair answer. If we change the system to include more of the highest scoring gymnasts nationwide more states will be left our of the highest level of competition. If the system is left as is then more states and regions will be represented and it will be a truer national competition but some higher level gymnasts may never get to Nationals.


Dunno, I understand what you are saying. Do you think if the system is changed it will discourage gymnastics in unrepresented regions (or states) ?

yes, they'll give up and raise the white flag.

 

[wandrewsjr]

and NIT was started BECAUSE there were so many athletes. and those athletes that would NOT be seen by college coaches. opportunity is now there for both groups and the college coaches already know what kids crapped on themselves at Regionals and made NIT's and the others that may have had the MEET OF THEIR LIFE and are in the "Nationals" division. the college coaches aren't stupid. they know who everyone is.

and as i have stated before, they really aren't concerned with how they do at this meet (seniors). they are there looking at 8th and 9th graders and others younger coming up. maybe there are those out there that have a problem with that. but this is the system we have and it won't change anytime soon.

and before you all may send emails, you need to seriously consider what i have told you. if USAG changes things to accommodate what you think would be better, i'm telling you that only 6-8 states will be represented. understand? if the state of Wyoming has no 10's, then they have no 10's. and there are many more states that have no 10's than the 6-8 that do. it is the lack of 10's in demographic/region areas that cause the issue. NOT the way the system is.

and as i compared, if Illinois were moved to Region 4 as was discussed a couple of years ago, what do you all think it would mean for Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska and Missouri? look how many 10's they have and then compare their top 7 in each age group to those from Illinois at either their State or Regional meet.

those from Hawaii already have a huge disadvantage. look at their numbers. then look at Region 2's. and they have to come "in country" to even compete. and along with all those expenses required to come mainland. if they were put in Region 1 for example, NO ONE from Hawaii would make it out of Regionals because Region 1's numbers are so overwhelming.

honestly folks, think serious before you start sending out emails. be careful what you wish for...

I don't think doing some tweaking to balance the regions would cause all the states to go unrepresented. The JO National team last year was made up of gymnasts from 17 states. I think the girls good enough to finish top 4 at nationals would qualify no matter what the system.

Moving Illinois from 5 to 4 was never a good idea. You just replace the problem of 5 being too big with the problem of 4 being too big.

I get that we want the whole country to be represented. But we drew the lines in the first place, right? I don't understand what's wrong with redrawing the lines, just a little, to help balance the numbers just a little better. When the lines were drawn did they really envision that some regions would have 5 to 6 times as many gymnasts as the others? What about something like this:

Move Norcal to region 2, Michigan to region 4, New Jersey to region 6, North and South Carolina to region 7

Current level 10 numbers at regionals
region 1 - 225
region 2 - 50
region 3 - 181
region 4 - 149
region 5 - 261
region 6 - 143
region 7 - 163
region 8 - 259
estimated new numbers
region 1 - 165
region 2 - 110
region 3 - 181
region 4 - 209
region 5 - 201
region 6 - 203
region 7 - 168
region 8 - 194

Perfect? Absolutely not. And I am sure that there might be some better moves that could be made. But we could bring the numbers a little closer to balanced by just moving a few border states to the next regions. And I think the smaller states will still have a chance. And it might even give the smaller states that are currently in a large region dominated by a couple large states a better chance.

 

[MeetDirector]

I am totally in agreement with Dunno on this. Is the current system perfect? No its not. However, what the current system does is provide each gymnast in a state with a path to a competition above and beyone thier state championship. At the Regional meet, the athletes then know that in order to move to the next level they must finish in the top 6 or 12 in each age division for Lvl 9 or top 9 (JO Nat plus NIT) in each age division for Lvl 10. The path to the penultimate competition for a gymnast's level is clearly laid out for them. Are there going to be some high scoring athletes left at home because thier region's spots are filled by higher scoring gymnasts? Yes, that is a fact of life for thier region. Could the regions be re-wickered to balance the numbers? Sure, but then you have to figure out how often you are going to do this and what the basis for realigning is going to be (ie, how far out of balance means its time for realignment).

 

[wandrewsjr]

I am totally in agreement with Dunno on this. Is the current system perfect? No its not. However, what the current system does is provide each gymnast in a state with a path to a competition above and beyone thier state championship. At the Regional meet, the athletes then know that in order to move to the next level they must finish in the top 6 or 12 in each age division for Lvl 9 or top 9 (JO Nat plus NIT) in each age division for Lvl 10. The path to the penultimate competition for a gymnast's level is clearly laid out for them. Are there going to be some high scoring athletes left at home because thier region's spots are filled by higher scoring gymnasts? Yes, that is a fact of life for thier region. Could the regions be re-wickered to balance the numbers? Sure, but then you have to figure out how often you are going to do this and what the basis for realigning is going to be (ie, how far out of balance means its time for realignment).

How about when we get to the point that the largest region is 5 times the size of the smallest, it's time to redraw the lines. Try to bring the numbers back to a balance of no region is more than twice as big as any other. Don't need perfection. Would likely only have to revisit every generation(say 25 years), to account for major population shifts.

 

[HelenZ]

I don't think doing some tweaking to balance the regions would cause all the states to go unrepresented. The JO National team last year was made up of gymnasts from 17 states. I think the girls good enough to finish top 4 at nationals would qualify no matter what the system.

Moving Illinois from 5 to 4 was never a good idea. You just replace the problem of 5 being too big with the problem of 4 being too big.

I get that we want the whole country to be represented. But we drew the lines in the first place, right? I don't understand what's wrong with redrawing the lines, just a little, to help balance the numbers just a little better. When the lines were drawn did they really envision that some regions would have 5 to 6 times as many gymnasts as the others? What about something like this:

Move Norcal to region 2, Michigan to region 4, New Jersey to region 6, North and South Carolina to region 7

Current level 10 numbers at regionals
region 1 - 225
region 2 - 50
region 3 - 181
region 4 - 149
region 5 - 261
region 6 - 143
region 7 - 163
region 8 - 259
estimated new numbers
region 1 - 165
region 2 - 110
region 3 - 181
region 4 - 209
region 5 - 201
region 6 - 203
region 7 - 168
region 8 - 194

Perfect? Absolutely not. And I am sure that there might be some better moves that could be made. But we could bring the numbers a little closer to balanced by just moving a few border states to the next regions. And I think the smaller states will still have a chance. And it might even give the smaller states that are currently in a large region dominated by a couple large states a better chance.

l