I don't see that ever happening. ....and are we just going to use that for level 10? How about kids repeating levels 4 and 5 etc...age is pretty straightforward.
WAG Numbers of L9 and 10s moving from Regionals to Nationals.....something seems crazy!
- Thread starter flippingtogether
- Start date
- Status
I don't see that ever happening. ....and are we just going to use that for level 10? How about kids repeating levels 4 and 5 etc...age is pretty straightforward.
Yes, fully agree that the top scoring girls in each region currently go. To be precise, it is the top 7 scoring girls by each age group in each region within levels 9 and 10 that go.
But in regions that have more L9s and 10s, (and, as we know some regions have multiples more by age group vs what other regions have), it seems that those larger regions should have more of a representation at Nationals - they should get a few more spots. Yes, the smaller Regions should have their fair share of spots and should compete as a Regional team. AND, in this case it will be that the smaller Regions do send a larger % of their girls than the larger Regions do.
BUT, I still really do think that the larger regions should be able to send at least a handful more of their gymnasts to Nationals (where you want to have the finest gymnasts from around the country, and yes some representation from all Regions).
Change is hard, and changing things after they have done them a certain way for a long time is especially hard (look when the women's levels went through their change a few years ago).
Sometimes there is no reason to make a change. But sometimes there is a need. I'd argue that this all needs a careful re-look.
already sorta happens... in region 2, there will be many age groups which won't fill their 7 (not enough gymnasts or gymnasts who didn't hit the 35) - I mean Jr. F in Region 2 only has TWO COMPETITOR!!! most divisions are only sending 3-4 gymnasts. those spots will go to the other regions based on some algorithm which no one is sure about this year... hopefully, those poor girls hitting 37.9 in R1 will take some of those spots...
That minimum score crept up from last year 34 to 35... should be at least 36 but then judges may just inflate scores so their regions' gymnasts can qualify...
That minimum score crept up from last year 34 to 35... should be at least 36 but then judges may just inflate scores so their regions' gymnasts can qualify...
Well the regions who win at JOs the prior year DO get to send more girls as they fill the spots vacant in the regions who don't fill their top 7...so if say region 3 won Jr D last year and region 2 has empty spots, region 3 gets to fill some of those...so these more populated regions do send more gymnasts.
they changed the criteria this year.. it's not based on winning prior year anymore...
"If any region is unable to field a team of seven gymnasts per age division, the open slots will be filled based on a percentage of eligible athletes in each region, in each age division. "
That was most certainly not a dig at your kid, or anyone's. More an observational theorization.
- Jan 4, 2008
- 4,077
The other problem by going on score alone is that it assumes that each region is scoring their gymnasts exactly the same. We have had many discussions on this board before, stating that different regions do score girls differently.
That's not all the top scoring girls though. As previously stated girls from tiny regions could go with as low as a 34.0, versus a girl who doesn't go with a 37.7.
We have also had discussions about the need to reconfigure the regions based on geography and amount of gymnasts. Many of us agree it would be beneficial for a variety of reasons. However it's a political decision and the powers that be can come to an agreement. A few years ago it seemed to be seriously considered but I have not heard it discussed recently.
This along with scoring discrepancies and the fact that it is a judged sport makes it impossible to be completely "fair" to all. Someone or someone's mom will always think they belong at the next level.
This along with scoring discrepancies and the fact that it is a judged sport makes it impossible to be completely "fair" to all. Someone or someone's mom will always think they belong at the next level.
The minimum score could be raised to 35 or 35.5 or even 36 but the argument is that regions may get more generous with scoring. I could see bumping it up some.
List per region with scores they qualified with, not all,region 6 numbers in yet. Analyze away .....
https://www.chalkwarrior.com/single-post/2017/04/07/2017-JO-Nationals-Qualifiers
https://www.chalkwarrior.com/single-post/2017/04/07/2017-JO-Nationals-Qualifiers
Top score at the meet they attended. Really why not just take all the kids best scores per event throughout the season and do it that way. Because after all there might be a 37 who could of been a 38 but had a bad beam day............. Oh wait that is not how the system is designed.
What about the kid who had a bad day at states who is the "best" but had a bad bar day, oops no regionals for her............. Its sports. Any given Sunday.
The 34 would be the top score based on where, when and who they competed with. I'm sure there was a 33.7 who was disappointed too.
The 37.7 got beat by the higher scores at her meet.
They both more or less they type score it was going to take to qualify.
The top from each region goes.
In theory, technically everyone is free to move about the country. 37.7 could move to where 34 is living and beat her at regionals.
Happens in sports all the time. You have teams in the playoffs because they were fortunate enough to be in weaker division. Its a "playoff" type situation. Really you could go undefeated all season and lose a playoff game and you are out, no Superbowl or World Series for you. Same here you qualify for states, how you do at states determines if you go to reagionals, and then regionals determines nationals.
Nationals is about all the regions competing, you take the best of each region.................. Not fair for a "weaker" region to get less then a "stronger" region.
And as bookworm can attest to........... it all seems to even out in the end.
Because until they are all judged by the same judging panel its apples to oranges.
Gym Facebooks have also stated the following have made JO Nationals: Olivia Greaves (Region 7, Jr. A) and Avery Balser (Region 5, Jr. C). So there ARE more kids making it from the larger regions...mainly due to spots being open in Regions 2 & 6.
I have no problem taking it all the way down. Again L4 is L4, 5 is 5 and so on........ if you can do the level the age shouldn't matter. But you are correct the amount of years probably matter more. And it would certainly stop keeping kids back to win. If you put them all together then you get a bunch of high scorers where a 37 won't win the division or perhaps even place.
IGC does it in the lower levels. Its not a bad thing.
But then no really cares what I think.
Yep.
I always kind of chuckle because this is a sport where they have an Olympic Trial meet, where only the first place person is guaranteed a spot on the team. The rest is all done in the back room.
If folks want things strictly by the numbers, swimming, golf and track would be better sports.
I don't have much to add to the conversation except this makes me sad for my little region 2. Clearly things are unbalanced.
I suppose you could also say there are gymnasts in region 2 who wish they had access to the type of coaching and powerhouse gyms you see in region 1.
I would think the pool of eligible athletes would come from those regions who had done well in the past, as they would, in theory, have more kids than spots. One poster mentioned kids from regions 5 and 7 being named to fill in...and those are the regions I'd expect, along with probably region 1.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
