WAG Why Top 3?

[cbifoja]

Why is the team score calculated using just 3 scores? Is it convention? What made it that way at the beginning?

Would there be benefits or drawbacks to averaging the scores and using that as a team score? Would it be more fair to small teams or less fair to large teams? Would it change the perception of holding back for team titles or make it worse?

Thoughts?

 

[MeetDirector]

The convention for calculating team scores is either top 3 or 4 scores on each event. It has to be specified up front. The reasoning is, again, one of numbers. If you use top 3 scores, you will likely have more clubs able to be entered in the team competition; top 4 scores might eliminate some clubs that might not have that many girls in that level. College meets take top 5 out of 6 on each event to calculate team score. The USAG Rules and Policies (page 41) give several other options for doing a team score.

 

[AlexsGymmyMom]

I have often wondered the same thing. With larger teams it seems easier to have 3 higher scores per event than a team that only has 3 or 4 girls on it! And those larger teams usually have the same kids pulling out the team score and the others are just along for the ride.

I kind of like the idea of averages so that all the girls from every team get to contribute. If the scores were averaged and maybe even drop the lowest score on each event than you get a better example of how the gym competes overall.

I will add that there is one L7 team in our area that has about 4 kids on team and they usually kill it at every meet they attend. Now that speaks volumes!!

 

[wallinbl]

The fewer scores they use, the more they value having the best individual gymnast(s). The more scores they use, the more they value depth. It's a trade off. Around here, they sometimes use 4 scores for "large" team divisions.

 

[gymdog]

Teams used to be MUCH smaller and this hasn't changed in decades. When I did compulsories a) most teams had 10 or less gymnasts and b) in some team score invitationals you had to choose ahead of time your "team" and ALL of their scores had to count , sort of like the five up, five count but everyone else can compete as an all star.

Nowadays I think with teams of 30 to 40 compulsories it would be interesting if 5 or 6 counted.

 

[vagymmomma]

I think the problem with averaging all scores is that it would lead some gyms to exclude certain gymnasts based on scores. I think that's contrary to USAG's goals.

 

[IreneKa]

Well, what about smaller teams? In the fall DD competed level 2, and there were only two of them on the team. At one meet both girls placed first AA in their age groups, and they had two highest scores in the entire session. Yet, because it was only two of them, they didn't get to participate in the team awards. I thought it was unfair.

 

[cbifoja]

Something I found interesting....

I am a numbers junkie who loves to analyze data. Last year, I took the L3 data from our state meet and calculated team score both ways....top 3 as is typical in meets we go to and then average.

The difference in the ranking was pretty interesting.

In top 3, the three largest clubs in our state won. Hands down, no contest. These were clubs fielding 40-50 gymnasts. But when I took the average, those top 3 didn't show up until 6th place. The top five teams were all small clubs. The second place team had just 4 gymnasts!

I think it would be very interesting to see if the trend I saw in our state was similar in all 50 states. Hmmmm....I will have some down time during spring break.....

 

[cbifoja]

I think the problem with averaging all scores is that it would lead some gyms to exclude certain gymnasts based on scores. I think that's contrary to USAG's goals.

But the flip side, is taking top 3 also could lead some gyms to hold back talented gymnasts for the sake of team score. Not that this EVER happens. LOL!

 

[AlexsGymmyMom]

I think the problem with averaging all scores is that it would lead some gyms to exclude certain gymnasts based on scores. I think that's contrary to USAG's goals.

I had not thought about that! Very good point and unfortunate that gyms would do this. But sometimes its all about the win!!

 

[cbifoja]

And I really am just playing devil's advocate here. I really don't know what the best system is. I would love to have the time to really do a true mathematical model looking at this over multiple years and compare the results.

 

[cbifoja]

Another thing to consider....some of these big clubs have girls that can barely perform the required skills. We've seen back handsprings with elbows so bent, we were worried for the safety of the child. And kids who were still being spotted over the vault table...at STATE!!!! Are you really an L4 if you can't do vault? It's a tough call to make.

So why does a big gym field gymnasts who aren't up to level standards? Is there an advantage (outside of the obvious monetary one) of having a large team? What role does a gymnast who is very weak play on a team?

I don't know what the balance is but would love to hear other people's perspectives.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

Teams used to be MUCH smaller and this hasn't changed in decades. When I did compulsories a) most teams had 10 or less gymnasts and b) in some team score invitationals you had to choose ahead of time your "team" and ALL of their scores had to count , sort of like the five up, five count but everyone else can compete as an all star.

Nowadays I think with teams of 30 to 40 compulsories it would be interesting if 5 or 6 counted.

==
we count top 5 in compulsory and top 3 in options, (4 kids 3 scores count).
Anyways, to the op,
Taking top 3 makes it an even playing field against the larger teams.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

Something I found interesting....

I am a numbers junkie who loves to analyze data. Last year, I took the L3 data from our state meet and calculated team score both ways....top 3 as is typical in meets we go to and then average.

The difference in the ranking was pretty interesting.

In top 3, the three largest clubs in our state won. Hands down, no contest. These were clubs fielding 40-50 gymnasts. But when I took the average, those top 3 didn't show up until 6th place. The top five teams were all small clubs. The second place team had just 4 gymnasts!

I think it would be very interesting to see if the trend I saw in our state was similar in all 50 states. Hmmmm....I will have some down time during spring break.....

==
this rule would only give ample reason to hold the bottom end back, to up the team average. You also know that what you are doing falls under CGM.

 

[cbifoja]

==
You also know that what you are doing falls under CGM.

Because I find numbers interesting???? I have a mathematical/scientific mind. My parents seem to love that trait in me as I can share interesting trends of how their kids do in different aspects of their school work.

No offense, but what right do you have to call me a name???? I don't go around calling you a jerk.

 

[gymdog]

==
we count top 5 in compulsory and top 3 in options, (4 kids 3 scores count).
Anyways, to the op,
Taking top 3 makes it an even playing field against the larger teams.

I like that to some extent. I can't quite think of any better way to do it. At states we count 4 scores for large team and 3 for small team. But in large team team size varies wildly. It almost seems like we need three divisions.

I kind of like the idea of whatever up, whatever count for optionals...makes it a little more exciting. Not for states obviously but for an invitational.I also like those invitationals that just mix up kids into big teams at optionals...there are a few out there. I think at level it gives the kids something a little different to be excited about and a taste of NCAA gymnastics.

Your state is a lot bigger and I would assume there are more 30ish teams. We have probably about 5 teams like that but that's still a big difference of "large" teams that have 12 or something.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

Because I find numbers interesting???? I have a mathematical/scientific mind. My parents seem to love that trait in me as I can share interesting trends of how their kids do in different aspects of their school work.

No offense, but what right do you have to call me a name???? I don't go around calling you a jerk.

==
Are you for real??? It was clearly a joke (hence the smily face), and the number statistic thing was mentioned as one of the tell tale signs on one of the threads here about CGP, ALSO A JOKE. J O K E

 

[gymgymgymnast08]

Something I found interesting....

I am a numbers junkie who loves to analyze data. Last year, I took the L3 data from our state meet and calculated team score both ways....top 3 as is typical in meets we go to and then average.

The difference in the ranking was pretty interesting.

In top 3, the three largest clubs in our state won. Hands down, no contest. These were clubs fielding 40-50 gymnasts. But when I took the average, those top 3 didn't show up until 6th place. The top five teams were all small clubs. The second place team had just 4 gymnasts!

I think it would be very interesting to see if the trend I saw in our state was similar in all 50 states. Hmmmm....I will have some down time during spring break.....

I thought I was the only one! No one ever appreciated it when I would crunch the numbers like that but I find all that so interesting. I usually just got a "shut up Rose!" I have to ask my research advisor if I can stop doing mathematical modeling of antibiotic resistant bacteria and start doing mathematical modeling of gymnastics!

 

[cbifoja]

I thought I was the only one! No one ever appreciated it when I would crunch the numbers like that but I find all that so interesting. I usually just got a "shut up Rose!" I have to ask my research advisor if I can stop doing mathematical modeling of antibiotic resistant bacteria and start doing mathematical modeling of gymnastics!

We could split up the states....I'll take west of the Mississippi River.

 

[happychaos]

But the flip side, is taking top 3 also could lead some gyms to hold back talented gymnasts for the sake of team score. Not that this EVER happens. LOL!

This is what I was thinking. If the team scores were averages, teams would have less incentive to hold back girls to win, which happens ALL THE TIME here. So much so that I almost wonder if the team awards even mean anything.

It seems like it would encourage gyms to develop strong rosters all the way through, instead of using a few key kids to win the team awards. The girls who typically get scores counted for team here are usually scoring FAR above average, and could easily be doing a level or two up and winning. Is it coaches legitimately uptraing the kids so they can fast track to optionals, or is it coaches holding back kids to win? No one knows, but doing it this way would certainly reduce the incentive coaches have to sandbag.