WAG Chalk warrior ranking of regions

[Deleted member 14190]

kind of cool . https://www.chalkwarrior.com/single-post/2017/07/12/USA-Gymnastics-Regions-Ranked

 

[raenndrops]

I like that they explained their methodology

 

[chalkbowl]

Is region 6 the only region that only allows a specific number of level 8s to compete at Regionals? Versus scoring a specific score at states to qualify? I know in NY alone there are more than 157 level 8s, so the number is clearly based only on those that qualified to regionals based on a percent of percent basis.

 

[Mrs. Puma]

Is region 6 the only region that only allows a specific number of level 8s to compete at Regionals? Versus scoring a specific score at states to qualify? I know in NY alone there are more than 157 level 8s, so the number is clearly based only on those that qualified to regionals based on a percent of percent basis.

Good question, I'd like to know how other regions do it too. There were 222 L8s at NY States, and 157 L8s total (so all states in the Region) at Region 6 Regionals. It's very hard to make L7/8 Regionals in Region 6. We had a L7 with a 36.85 that didn't make it.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

Is region 6 the only region that only allows a specific number of level 8s to compete at Regionals? Versus scoring a specific score at states to qualify? I know in NY alone there are more than 157 level 8s, so the number is clearly based only on those that qualified to regionals based on a percent of percent basis.

You need 583 level 8 to move up one spot in the rankings . you can look up each state meet and count them . Then submit the numbers to them .

 

[chalkbowl]

You need 583 level 8 to move up one spot in the rankings . you can look up each state meet and count them . Then submit the numbers to them .

I don't disagree with the ranking of the regions. However, it should state that the number of level 8s is based on those that qualified to regionals. That number is going to vary significantly if a region has qualifications based on score versus a set number of athletes. I'm curious if any other regions, besides region 6, have a set qualification number.

 

[Texasmomof3]

Region 3 has a set number of qualifiers.

For example, we had some girls in Texas at level 7 who scored in the 37s at state and did not qualify to regionals, because it was a set number. I actually thought all regions were this way.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

I don't disagree with the ranking of the regions. However, it should state that the number of level 8s is based on those that qualified to regionals. That number is going to vary significantly if a region has qualifications based on score versus a set number of athletes. I'm curious if any other regions, besides region 6, have a set qualification number.

When it comes to levels 8 amd under each region has its own criteria. If they allow 8's to go to nationals someday then a national standard will be mandated.

 

[profmom]

If anyone is in touch with them, please convey to them that I think what they are trying to do is really great, but they could do it even better with some very minimal consulting with a qualified social scientist on how to design comparative quantitative studies. Since they are already putting a lot of effort into gathering the data, doing just a few things differently could make the end product a good deal more reliable and useful. Basically, when you're doing comparisons, you need to ensure you're comparing apples to apples. Looking at overall numbers of qualifiers only makes sense if a) the base number of competitors is similar and b) the system through which people qualify is the same. As just one example of why base numbers matter, what would be more impressive to you personally, a system in which of 100 competitors, 10 reached the highest possible level (objectively determined across systems), or a system in which of 1000 competitors, 10 reached that level?

 

[phenom_dad]

If anyone is in touch with them, please convey to them that I think what they are trying to do is really great, but they could do it even better with some very minimal consulting with a qualified social scientist on how to design comparative quantitative studies. Since they are already putting a lot of effort into gathering the data, doing just a few things differently could make the end product a good deal more reliable and useful. Basically, when you're doing comparisons, you need to ensure you're comparing apples to apples. Looking at overall numbers of qualifiers only makes sense if a) the base number of competitors is similar and b) the system through which people qualify is the same. As just one example of why base numbers matter, what would be more impressive to you personally, a system in which of 100 competitors, 10 reached the highest possible level (objectively determined across systems), or a system in which of 1000 competitors, 10 reached that level?

we have a math wiz in the group! this ranking for sure is tilted based on number of competitors in the region.....

 

[gymgal]

Is region 6 the only region that only allows a specific number of level 8s to compete at Regionals? Versus scoring a specific score at states to qualify? I know in NY alone there are more than 157 level 8s, so the number is clearly based only on those that qualified to regionals based on a percent of percent basis.

Region 8 does a specific number for L8 (6 and 7 too). 438 participated at L8 regionals, which is what chalk warrior is listing but that's only about half of who qualified for state meets at L8. So that number alone is way off. For L8, they should have counted up the individual state meet numbers within each region for a more accurate number. How does Region 1, 5, 7 qualify their L8 regional competitors?

Also, region 8 began requiring a 35 for L9 regionals 2 years ago and for L10 this past year. So that brings those numbers down compared to the rest of the regions (unless all went to 35 for regionals this year - but I think that is only to qualify for nationals, right?). Obviously, though it doesn't change the number of AA titles for Nationals since every region sends the same number of girls.

 

[gymgal]

If anyone is in touch with them, please convey to them that I think what they are trying to do is really great, but they could do it even better with some very minimal consulting with a qualified social scientist on how to design comparative quantitative studies. Since they are already putting a lot of effort into gathering the data, doing just a few things differently could make the end product a good deal more reliable and useful. Basically, when you're doing comparisons, you need to ensure you're comparing apples to apples. Looking at overall numbers of qualifiers only makes sense if a) the base number of competitors is similar and b) the system through which people qualify is the same. As just one example of why base numbers matter, what would be more impressive to you personally, a system in which of 100 competitors, 10 reached the highest possible level (objectively determined across systems), or a system in which of 1000 competitors, 10 reached that level?

agreed. Region 8 numbers are definitely skewed downward due to their qualification criteria for regionals, which is apparently what they are using as numbers.

They have a facebook page. You may be able to reach them easily that way if you want to help out.

 

[phenom_dad]

Region 8 does a specific number for L8 (6 and 7 too). 438 participated at L8 regionals, which is what chalk warrior is listing but that's only about half of who qualified for state meets at L8. So that number alone is way off. For L8, they should have counted up the individual state meet numbers within each region for a more accurate number. How does Region 1, 5, 7 qualify their L8 regional competitors?

Also, region 8 began requiring a 35 for L9 regionals 2 years ago and for L10 this past year. So that brings those numbers down compared to the rest of the regions (unless all went to 35 for regionals this year - but I think that is only to qualify for nationals, right?). Obviously, though it doesn't change the number of AA titles for Nationals since every region sends the same number of girls.

in R5 a 34.0 at state is required to go to regionals. or you can petition if you were injured or qualify to compete on an individual event

 

[coachmolly]

If anyone is in touch with them, please convey to them that I think what they are trying to do is really great, but they could do it even better with some very minimal consulting with a qualified social scientist on how to design comparative quantitative studies. Since they are already putting a lot of effort into gathering the data, doing just a few things differently could make the end product a good deal more reliable and useful. Basically, when you're doing comparisons, you need to ensure you're comparing apples to apples. Looking at overall numbers of qualifiers only makes sense if a) the base number of competitors is similar and b) the system through which people qualify is the same. As just one example of why base numbers matter, what would be more impressive to you personally, a system in which of 100 competitors, 10 reached the highest possible level (objectively determined across systems), or a system in which of 1000 competitors, 10 reached that level?

I think ChalkWarrior is run by a high school student. She's obviously impressively good at the marketing, web building, promoting, graphic/video stuff, but it's understandable why her social science skills are lacking.

 

[gymgal]

in R5 a 34.0 at state is required to go to regionals. or you can petition if you were injured or qualify to compete on an individual event

for Level 8? That's a big difference. NC's qualifying was a 35.7 and the number of girls between that and a score of 34 is roughly 30 gymnasts. I am sure FL and GA were higher because they have more total gymnasts. So at least 100 more L8 gymnasts just from those three states. Likely more like 150-200 taking into account the 5 other states.

 

[phenom_dad]

for Level 8? That's a big difference. NC's qualifying was a 35.7 and the number of girls between that and a score of 34 is roughly 30 gymnasts. I am sure FL and GA were higher because they have more total gymnasts. So at least 100 more L8 gymnasts just from those three states. Likely more like 150-200 taking into account the 5 other states.

Yes levels 8-10. But that is the same across the region. state to state it does not change.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

It's an opinion. Yes it incorporates data/measures. And it is still an opinion.

Data, can and is skewed all the time......................The conclusion is an opinion based on the data used. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[3rd_time_around]

Region 8 does a specific number for L8 (6 and 7 too). 438 participated at L8 regionals, which is what chalk warrior is listing but that's only about half of who qualified for state meets at L8. So that number alone is way off. For L8, they should have counted up the individual state meet numbers within each region for a more accurate number. How does Region 1, 5, 7 qualify their L8 regional competitors?

Also, region 8 began requiring a 35 for L9 regionals 2 years ago and for L10 this past year. So that brings those numbers down compared to the rest of the regions (unless all went to 35 for regionals this year - but I think that is only to qualify for nationals, right?). Obviously, though it doesn't change the number of AA titles for Nationals since every region sends the same number of girls.

Region 8 actually does a percentage, not a specific number. The number for region qualifiers from each state that you see listed on the Region 8 website before the state meet is based on number of level 8s in each state. I think the percentage might be 50% +1 or it might be a higher percentage. That's why some states have a lot more qualifiers than others. Region 8 raised the Level 9/10 requirements probably because there are so many gymnasts at that level.

 

[honu]

Interesting to see how the different regions compare. Sounds like some tweaking of the methods might help, but nice to get some insight. Region 7 changed its method of qualifying to Level 8 Regionals last year. They went from a set number of gymnasts to a qualifying score of 34 AA at your state meet. Per the recent Region 7 committee minutes, the qualifying score is changing to a 35 AA. This year the level 8 Regional meet was a large 4 day meet. Looks like they are trying to find the right balance between too few and too many gymnast qualifying.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

we have a math wiz in the group! this ranking for sure is tilted based on number of competitors in the region.....

That being said , in my opinion a region with more athletes as a whole is doing a better job at bringing kids up so they are "better". So this logic is flawed in my opinion.