WAG Numbers of L9 and 10s moving from Regionals to Nationals.....something seems crazy!

Parents... Coaches... Gymnasts...
Gymnastics Questions?
Don't Lurk... We've Got Answers!

New For 2022
MEMBERS ONLY Parent Group!
Join for FREE!
Status
Not open for further replies.

flippingtogether

Proud Parent
Jan 20, 2013
351
It's a big Regionals weekend, so I was looking at the data around the country for this year.
I find this crazy: It has to do with the number of qualifiers at L9 and L10 moving to nationals....
(I know this came in discussion a while back ago, and was REALLY hoping things changed. It appears they have not.)

Is appears it is STILL true that regardless of region size and # of entries per age group:

FOR LEVEL 9: The number of age groups is 12 with seven(7) athletes per region per age division qualifying (Assuming they meet the criteria).

FOR LEVEL 10: The number of age groups is 16 , with seven (7) athletes per region per age division qualifying.

Every region sends the SAME number of kids, regardless of region size.
I find this CRAZY. I am familar with Region 7, and Region 4. So here is the data for each:

REGION 7 (mid-Altlantic) has a nice sheet that shows how many girls are in each age group in this region this weekend:
http://assets.ngin.com/attachments/document/0120/7899/2017_9-10_Regional_Meet_schedule.pdf

REGION 4 (upper midwest) has sheets with numbers by each level and age group:
Level 10: http://www.region4gymnastics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/L10-Rankings-March-27-Noon-1.pdf
Level 9: http://www.region4gymnastics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/L9-Rankings-March-27-Noon.pdf

So if you compare these two regions, you find that Region 7 is (no surprise) much bigger than Region 4. And, it makes no sense that a flat number of girls will go to regionals from each Region.
Look at L9 Junior 3 in Region 4. 7 kids are in that age group. All 7 Region 4 girls in this age group will go - that's 100% (if they get a 34). This is completely anticlimatic! Then look at L9 Junior 3 in Region 7 with its 19 girls (less than 38% will make it).
Look at Senior 8: 45 girls in Region 7 (15.5% will make it); 14 girls Region 4 (50% will make it).
How can anyone say this is the right way to do this?? How can this be fair??
And so in order to make it fair, it would seem that % of kids should be calculated instead.

Here is an example of a multiplier being used currently by a Region - look at Region 3 for their L7 and L8 Regional advancement, This method seems to make sense. They use a multiplier along with each state's number of entries to calculate a fair number of girls from each state to advance on to L7 and L8 Regionals.
http://www.reg3.com/2017/2017 L7 & L8 Regional Advancement Chart.pdf

Is there ANY chance that L9 and 10s will adopt a multiplier type of system to make things more fair?
And WHY on earth isn't a multiplier method currently used nationally for L9 and 10 advancement to Nationals?
The end result is that girls who really do deserve to move on to nationals don't get to go, while others in smaller regions get to move on simply because of the small size of their region. Equal representation by calculating a % of the number of girls entered by region seems the obvious answer to me!
(Am I missing something here?)
 

bookworm

Gold Membership
Proud Parent
This topic has been discussed, ad nauseum...and it is what it is. Some of you live in regions with a lot of good gymnasts and some of you don't...the rules have been top 7 to to JOs out of Regionals for years, and you really do see the top level 10s in the country. I don't see the rules changing because it keeps JOs representative of all regions, not just 2 or 3....and who's to say if it changed to "the top 400 scores in the country , regardless of region, go to JOs" that you wouldn't see super inflated scores....
 

Aussie_coach

Staff member
Gold Membership
Coach
Proud Parent
Gymnast
Club Owner / Manager
Jan 4, 2008
3,830
I think it is a fair enough system. If each region is represented equally, then each region has a vested interest in supporting nationals. If they just took the top scores and some regions had most of the competitors and others had none at all, it would cause some issues.

To truly be a national competition you need gymnasts from all over the country participating.

The best from each region should have a right to go regardless of the size of the region.

Just like the world championships, we have the right to bring gymnasts the same as the USA and we are a fraction of the population.
 

Gymmommy71

Proud Parent
May 15, 2012
890
It's really not fair. It's also not fair that there are girls w/ very high scores who don't make that top 7 in their own region because they are in more competitive age divisions. Not sure what the answer is though.
 

MILgymFAM

Proud Parent
Fan
Feb 6, 2014
4,717
41
Twin Cities
I peeked at mso for L8-10 regionals (R1), which has competed day one of three days. Already there have been 29 scores over a 38, and one girl with a 37.825 who didn't qualify to nationals. That's gotta suck so bad. I don't know what the answer is, but how do you see the best of the best at nationals when it's not just the straight up best scorers?
 
  • Like
Reactions: duyetanh and sce

Gymmommy71

Proud Parent
May 15, 2012
890
If you did it based on score, who makes it could be skewed by tougher or easier scoring in different regions. I think if anything it should be based on a top percentage for each region.

If there is a big discrepancy in the total number of gymnasts in each region, maybe they should consider redrawing the districts so things are more balanced?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LinnieC and l.c.o

ldw4mlo

Proud Parent
Feb 13, 2015
6,339
62
I agree with Aussiecoach and book worm.

Let's look at the Olympics. Should we only send the highest scorers at the Country Qualifiers, regardless of country. So we would have what a 3 or 4 country Olympics.

Probably a lot of girls here (US) who would qualify to a different country's team but will never make the US team.

The fairest thing to do is to take equal numbers from each region, that way, Nationals truly represent every region.

And it always stinks when there is an age group stacked with talent. Sometimes the age group works for you, sometimes not.
 

flippingtogether

Proud Parent
Jan 20, 2013
351
I think the only thing you are missing is that each region wants to be able to field teams... If they do a % of a %, then some regions wouldn't be able field a team.

So maybe the answer is a hybrid that allows a good representation of gymnasts (and #s of gymnasts) from each region to go to Nationals.....but still has a larger number of girls from the larger regions moving on to the Big Dance. (Yes, it really really stinks if you get a 37 and don't make it to Nationals.)

First - there must be a magic minimum number of girls that "have" to go from each region so that each region has a solid # of girls to field a "real team" at Nationals - I wouldn't know what that number is, but I am sure someone smarter than me can figure this out. Bigger regions WILL have more girls, and smaller regions will have less - that makes sense as long as the smaller regions have enough girls there to make it a "real team".

Then with that minimum number in mind for the smaller regions, the numbers of girls who move on from each region is calculated.
Ideally, each region will send a send x% of their L9s and 10s, based on how many they have compared to the total # in the country so it is a fair % going to Nationals by region. (But based on responses above, we know that cannot work).
So, what about including a caveat where there is a MINIMUM number of girls at each level from each region (maybe from each age group if it needs to work that way?) who move on to nationals.
This would be something for the smaller regions that is smaller than 12x7 (L9), or 16x7 (L10). Maybe each regions needs to send a min. of 3 or 4 girls per age group at the very least - I truly don't know what the magic number is to make sure there is a "true" Regional team for each region at Nationals.

So to look again at a real example in Region 4 - where there are 7 girls in the L9 Junior 3 group. Under the current system all 7 will go to Nationals if they get their 34 (seems crazy to me).
What about if instead first we try to apply a % to this group as to how many should make it, based on the national numbers for this age group (maybe it's 40%). BUT, if there is a need to have this Region 4 age group represented at Nationals, there might be a minimum threshold of girls that need to make it past Regionals - so maybe the calculation is 40%, BUT with a min. of 4 girls qualifying (or whatever the number needs to be).
Can anyone really make the argument that all 7 of these girls should automatically go to Nationals, knowing there are other regions with way more girls in this age group? I can't justify it, and really think there has to be a better way.
 

skschlag

Staff member
Gold Membership
Proud Parent
Jul 19, 2011
11,170
Region 9
So, the boys do something like that. There is a certain number of each level that will make it to nationals (say 200 L9s). Then they do a percentage from each region. So, an example would be that 33% of the L9 would make nationals. So one region could send 30, and another 11. But....you still have the same issue. Kids with higher scores in one region will be home while kids with lower scores in another region go. No way to avoid that. The percentages can change each year and from level to level.

of course, boys do not have as many age groups, so not sure how it would work for girls. Boys have L8 12 yo, L9 13/14, L10 15/16 and 17/18. You make it to nationals based on those age groups (so 1 at 8, 1 at 9 and 2 at 10). At nationals, they break it out into individual years. But, It is very possible that at L9 you could have 2 age groups that are very very different in numbers. L9 13 yo could have 40 and 14 yo could have 90, or vice versa. And they are not split up further.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sce

bookworm

Gold Membership
Proud Parent
I peeked at mso for L8-10 regionals (R1), which has competed day one of three days. Already there have been 29 scores over a 38, and one girl with a 37.825 who didn't qualify to nationals. That's gotta suck so bad. I don't know what the answer is, but how do you see the best of the best at nationals when it's not just the straight up best scorers?

The "best scores" ar regionals don't necessarily mean the "best of the best" didn't make it because someone in another region made it....your example is 29 scores over 38 (on day 1 of regionals, mind you....) ...and other regions (like ours) , have a much rarer incidence of 38s....and I'll use my own kid as an example...at regionals in all her years, she scored 38 twice, a couple 37s and a 36.5 her first time, and always did well against these powerhouse regions sending all their teams with 38s! She was top 10 AA and events, even won one year so I think the system in place works because you have such a difference in judging by region. Unless ALL regionals were judged by the same panel ( like JOs) , I don't think the system can be changed...

In my almost 20 years (OMG) in this sport, I think the JO Nationals has shown the best of the best, and I've been going as early as 2005...do some kids not make it on certain years, yes, but on the whole, the top kids are there. In fact, our region has even had a few kids "relocate" right before States and "our little engine that could" region still kept right up with these kids and beat them...we weren't the pushover that they'd hoped for!
 

MILgymFAM

Proud Parent
Fan
Feb 6, 2014
4,717
41
Twin Cities
How would you know though? Maybe had all those top scoring girls gotten to go, your DD wouldn't have placed as well. Some of the toughest competition may have been left home. I'm not saying that's absolutely the case, but it certainly could be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sce

LizzieLac

Proud Parent
May 4, 2010
1,872
How about this...in my state for levels 7&8 the older age groups ALWAYS go first. There is a theory that the state wants the younger girls to go to regionals. I don't know if this is true but my point is that even with the same judges you do not know for certain that sessions of the same meet are even being the judged the same. So hard to say that the 38 should go but not the 37. Maybe the 37 was judged harder for some random or even calculate reason.

I think a standard number should qualify from each region so there is a minimum number for a regional team. After that there has to be an additional number qualifying based on score. And I submit that the judges in each region may actually judge harder/easier or whatever. So it can never be 100% fair.
 

bookworm

Gold Membership
Proud Parent
How would you know though? Maybe had all those top scoring girls gotten to go, your DD wouldn't have placed as well. Some of the toughest competition may have been left home. I'm not saying that's absolutely the case, but it certainly could be.

My point was some regions have tons of girls scoring "over 37 and 38 " and when they get to JOs , it's not like those regional top scoring girls totally dominate JOs...girls from other, tougher scoring regions are also up there with them....some regions score tougher than others but JOs, where they're all scored by the same panel of judges, is the great equalizer..

....and thanks for the dig on my kid, but she was always , by score, a gymnast that deserved her spot...
 

ldw4mlo

Proud Parent
Feb 13, 2015
6,339
62
How would you know though? Maybe had all those top scoring girls gotten to go, your DD wouldn't have placed as well. Some of the toughest competition may have been left home. I'm not saying that's absolutely the case, but it certainly could be.
All the top scoring girls by region do go.
If the 38s in a region go and not the 37s. The 37s weren't the toughest in their region.
 

ldw4mlo

Proud Parent
Feb 13, 2015
6,339
62
I hate the gripping about age thing. Really f you are level 10, you are level 10.

9 yrs old, 10, 14. You are Level 10. You can't really gripe the younger kids or older score better.

The age group thing is not new.

Even at our lowly L5/6 meets. My kid scores 36ish, ends up lower placed then her older teammate scores 33-34 who is top 3 because of being in a different age group. Her younger teammate who scores between the 2 ends up even lower in placement at times because she is in a different age group.

Personally I think it should be X number of kids per region based on scores, taking age out of the equation. And you would still have gripping.
 

Committed

Proud Parent
Dec 31, 2012
3,183
Level 10 is different though. Kids can be 5-6 year level 10s. That's not the same as a kid repeating a level. They've been perfecting and building these skills for years.
Sure, it sucks for a senior who is a first year ten, going against girls who hit L10 at 11yo.
But..... if there was a perfect way, it would have been figured out by now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aero and BachFlyer

ldw4mlo

Proud Parent
Feb 13, 2015
6,339
62
Level 10 is different though. Kids can be 5-6 year level 10s. That's not the same as a kid repeating a level. They've been perfecting and building these skills for years.
Sure, it sucks for a senior who is a first year ten, going against girls who hit L10 at 11yo.
But..... if there was a perfect way, it would have been figured out by now.
Then perhaps the better way is to group by years at the level not by age.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LinnieC
Status
Not open for further replies.