WAG Qualifying to Nationals

[sce]

Where would I find # of kids in R1 senior groups? Is the qualifying criteria Top 7 per age group with AA 35+ for R1? Thank you.

I think that is the qualifying criterion for every region?

 

[gymgal]

Yes, there's amazing talent in that group, some Hopes qualifiers that probably won't get out of Region 1, gymnasts you will hear about in the next few years. I've seen elite qualifiers not get out of Region 1. It's tough when you can't say to your gymnast, "If you do your best, you will make it." Probably region 3 has the junior B's. I think 37 scores should be automatic entries.

LemonLime above--really nails it.

Out of curiosity, I checked the regional meets last year. A total of 55 girls across all regions did not make the top 7 but scored at least a 37. Region 1 had the most, followed by R7 and then R8 and R5. The other regions didn't have any. Now, I know that some of those gymnast actually went to Nationals, either through competing for another region or being called up from alternate status, but I did not take the time to look at the individual girls.

my 2 questions are: 1. Could the meet handle another ~50 gymnasts and how would they be included since at this point all regions and age divisions have the same number of competitors. and 2. would there then be a gradual inflating of scores to let more girls from particular regions go to nationals? A few years ago, they eliminated the NIT and added those gymnasts into Nationals to give more a chance to compete at the big meet. I am not sure they will want to increase the meet again and I highly doubt they would bring back the NIT for this... but you never know.

I do agree that a 37 is a good cutoff point. In general, it demonstrates the ability to be competitive.

 

[Exgymmomx3]

Despite all of the “easy” comments about region 4, I feel the need to point out that 50% of the current top ten college AA gymnasts come from this region at this timeBrenna Dowell, Maddie Karr, Sarah Finnegan, Lynnzee Brown, and Lexy Rambler. Of course, let’s not forget the great Maggie Nichols, who would be in there if she wasn’t injured. Idk, but region 4 gymnasts seems to be fairly talented to me. I don’t think they got there because it was “unfair”.

 

[Seeker]

Despite all of the “easy” comments about region 4, I feel the need to point out that 50% of the current top ten college AA gymnasts come from this region at this timeBrenna Dowell, Maddie Karr, Sarah Finnegan, Lynnzee Brown, and Lexy Rambler. Of course, let’s not forget the great Maggie Nichols, who would be in there if she wasn’t injured. Idk, but region 4 gymnasts seems to be fairly talented to me. I don’t think they got there because it was “unfair”.

No one said it was "easy". Easier perhaps -- yes, it can be easier. Hard to dispute that for R4 and R2 where some of the age groups don't even have enough to field a team of 7. It's not personal; it's just raw data.

 

[Muddlethru]

Well yes, I'd rather have my daughter hitting 37's and up, but I'm paying for those 25 hours of stellar coaching and drive her to gym, sometimes in the car for 3 hours RT. She's in the car an extra 15 hours a week to get that training. The point is, that a gymnast scoring 37's at regionals should go, irrespective of what's happening at other meets. I'm fine with gymnasts scoring 35s at regionals and going if that's the top in their region, as long as those scoring higher at other more populated regionals can go too.

Many “weaker” regions pay a premium for that 15 hours believe it or not and I know many who drive two hours to a gym. In our region you almost have to and yet those gyms don’t compare to the top gyms. I’m not arguing at all that any gymnast should not go. Just stating there are many other variables that make this sport unfair. Throw judging into that. Some scores fluctuate greatly. There’s been several threads in this forum about which region or state has the harshest judges. Add funding to that mess. Some regions have more funding and personnel. Going to regionals alone, you can tell which state has more support by the apparel they wear. But I agree that it does seem unfair that someone scoring 35 (and at one point 34) would be going to nationals and some girls scoring mid 37 were staying at home, just not as unfair as it seems.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

This always fascinates me.

Because on the threads where ........ my kid was at a meet and she scored better then her teammates but got less medals......

That person is told well just the luck of the age groups. By many who this time of year go unfair..... When the age groups and regions don’t work for them.

Perspective....

L3, Xcel, JO Nationals. Just how it goes. We are used to this.

Personally my kid isn’t looking for college coach exposure. If she was it would be more important to me she be at a gym that sends kids to college. And her videos be ready to go.

While Nationals certainly don’t hurt. Coaches are looking at much more then that.

 

[tomtnt]

Should just do two age groups like elites: Jr and Sr. Number of each Jr and St qualifying set at percentage of each region’s age group.

Strictly for college recruiting, it probably isn’t the worst thing in the world to not qualify- most of the same college coaches were at region 1 regionals... many of the coaches were at norcal states..

 

[wandrewsjr]

Just wanted to add yet another variable. There are also those who face long drives and less acces to gyms in the smaller or more rural states in the bigger Regions. A gymnast in Seattle has more access than one in Casper, Wyoming. A gymnast in Minneapolis has more access than one in central Mississippi. Lots of variables. Never going to find a system that fixes them all.

 

[Gigi]

I think that is the qualifying criterion for every region?

Apparently so. I didn't know so I tried to be specific in my question but sounds like you are correct. =D

 

[2gymmies]

To add fuel to this fire... the first session for Region 5 already has 37 all arounders staying home! 37.375 was 8th place for senior A

 

[Peachy88]

Should we also discuss the merits/deficits of the electoral college? Just joking, but same issues.

Couldn’t they just say top 8 plus anyone with a 37? How many girls would that add? If too many then say a 37.25?

 

[skschlag]

Couldn’t they just say top 8 plus anyone with a 37? How many girls would that add? If too many then say a 37.25?

I think it used to be a score, but you can end up getting score inflation that way...to qualify more girls.

 

[Peachy88]

I think it used to be a score, but you can end up getting score inflation that way...to qualify more girls.

I know.... ugh

 

[gymbeam]

I think it used to be a score, but you can end up getting score inflation that way...to qualify more girls.

Then how about a percent of each age group?

Wouldnt that work to make more qualifiers from larger age groups get to go?

I must be missing something as a reason they don’t do that because it seems obvious to me that’s the answer.

 

[skschlag]

Then how about a percent of each age group?

Wouldnt that work to make more qualifiers from larger age groups get to go?

I must be missing something as a reason they don’t do that because it seems obvious to me that’s the answer.

This is what boys do. They use a percentage to calculate qualifiers.

 

[Peachy88]

This is what boys do. They use a percentage to calculate qualifiers.

Yes that makes complete sense.

 

[skschlag]

Yes that makes complete sense.

It does..but you still leave kids home. My son's teammate did not make nationals in his age group, but in the next age group he would have qualified easily. SO this still happens.

 

[Jard.the.gymnast]

Or you throw all the scores out of the entire country together and the top 10% or so (how many qualify now?) are able to go to nationals per region. No age groups, based on the amount of competitors. Then you could have age groups at nationals based on who qualify

 

[LemonLime]

Are region 4, 5 and 2 results posted anywhere?

 

[Agtgymmom]

Are region 4, 5 and 2 results posted anywhere?

Region 5 is on the my usagym app