WAG Chalk warrior ranking of regions

[wallinbl]

I like that they explained their methodology

Arbitrary as it is. This is one of those situations where you can make any number of results simply by changing the way you award points. The result is that not much is actually accomplished other than to say "if I award points this way, it comes out like this".

 

[ayyyrial]

It would be nice to also know at least the overall population of the regions. Not sure about regions, but I'm sure Alaska has fewer L10s than New York...

 

[raenndrops]

Arbitrary as it is. This is one of those situations where you can make any number of results simply by changing the way you award points. The result is that not much is actually accomplished other than to say "if I award points this way, it comes out like this".

Yes, but because they explained it, we are aware. We could take their numbers and weight them differently if we think something should be weighted more than something else.

 

[wallinbl]

Yes, but because they explained it, we are aware. We could take their numbers and weight them differently if we think something should be weighted more than something else.

The majority of the public isn't sufficiently data aware. This is a mostly harmless issue/topic, but this sort of reporting is unfortunately widespread. I work in data/analytics, so I'm probably more sensitive to responding to things like this than others.

The implication is that the "data" gives it some kind of authority, but given the way it's used, it's just misleading more than anything else.

 

[mommyof1]

Arbitrary as it is. This is one of those situations where you can make any number of results simply by changing the way you award points. The result is that not much is actually accomplished other than to say "if I award points this way, it comes out like this".

Yes, and at least it this time it is transparent.

If this is really a high school kid, I bet she could find a college professor who would be happy to advise her. With some guidance, she could probably come up with a nice little project.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

Arbitrary as it is. This is one of those situations where you can make any number of results simply by changing the way you award points. The result is that not much is actually accomplished other than to say "if I award points this way, it comes out like this".

But that's practically everything in gymnastics. .

 

[josie55]

FWIW, if you remove the Level 8 data, the rankings are almost identical. Region 1 is still on top, Regions 5 and 3 are swapped, and the rest are the same. I think it's actually decent methodology when you have a situation where no one factor is driving the results.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

Also , USAG has already ranked the regions , this is just more in depth . And something to read.

 

[profmom]

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.

h

As far as regional comparison is concerned, you have first to take into account base population. The regions (unlike congressional districts) are very unevenly populated. I suspect that number of available potential athletes explains more the variance between Region 1 and Region 2 than comparative quality of the gyms. Population probably explains number of athletes more strongly than quality of gym training in a particular region. In statistical terms, what you would want to do is use overall population size in the targeted age group as a control variable.

Even so, there's no way to know for sure without having more information. Many factors can contribute to the size of a given program or the number of optional athletes. Suppose you have Gym A, which is the only competitive gym in Mega City. It has 50 L5 gymnasts and 15 L10s because there really aren't any other options. Gym B is one of six competitive gyms in Huge City. It has 25 L5s and 7 L10s. Which gym is doing a better job? We would need other variables and measures to make the determination.

I'm not a quantitative researcher, but I could imagine building a model that provides a rough way of stacking gyms or regions up against each other. It would be difficult, though, in a federal system where rules and standards vary both from state to state and region to region. Even something that sounds simple like number of state qualifiers per level isn't a simple matter for comparison. States have different standards for qualifying to the championship meet, and we would probably also want to know both ratios of state qualifiers to overall number of participant competitive athletes and base population rates. Even this would only give you a rough approximation. For instance, I'm told that some areas in Maryland have very strong swimming cultures. A lot more kids are competitive swimmers there, and they tend to be more competitive regionally and nationally. Maryland isn't a huge state population-wise, but it may be harder to be the Maryland breast stroke champ than in a larger state where kids are more inclined to play soccer. These kinds of variations and institutional developments that you can only know through cultural/historical analysis are what interest me in my work.

The only place where the quantitative comparisons can be made easily would be at L9 and L10 nationals, where you are looking at head-to-head comparisons of athletes at the same meet. But nationals alone doesn't tell the whole story either about regions or about gyms.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

But that's practically everything in gymnastics. .

That's practically everything in life.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

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.

Not flawed.

It's also relative to population. I would expect CA to have more gymnasts at all levels, then North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

Not flawed.

It's also relative to population. I would expect CA to have more gymnasts at all levels, then North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana.

Correct but the population is most regions is pretty significant. New York Alone has 20 million so it's not like the population isn't in existence.

 

[profmom]

Region 1 population as of 2014: 51,315,985
Region 6 population as of 2014: 34,426,398

The differential between these regions is a bit more than the 2014 population of Region 2, which is 15,847,105.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

34.4 million is no small number

 

[Natasha]

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.

Region 8 level 6,7,8 are a set number of TOTAL competitors for Regionals based on how many they can fit into the sessions. This number does not change. It is in the R&P. The percentage numbers listed before the state meet it for the allocacation of the preset number to each state in the region.

 

[profmom]

Nor is 16 million, which is the population gap.

USAG really needs to readjust the regional boundaries.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

34.4 million is no small number

Reg 1 vs Reg 6 quick math
Pop 51 mil. Vs 34 mil
L10s 258. Vs 158

So region 1 population is 60 % of the regions combined, region 1 level 10s are 62% of the regions combined.

So per population in total percent wise they have the same numbers of level 10s. You have to look at the subsets relative to the population at as a whole

And ps, California's population is double New York's, at 37 mil vs 19 mil.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

I will happily send some of our region to another The smaller regions
Get a huge benefit of qualifying to nationals , but they won't do it. (They meaning the powers).

 

[3rd_time_around]

Region 8 level 6,7,8 are a set number of TOTAL competitors for Regionals based on how many they can fit into the sessions. This number does not change. It is in the R&P. The percentage numbers listed before the state meet it for the allocacation of the preset number to each state in the region.

Its based on the number of gymnasts in the state. Its different every year.

 

[Aussie_coach]

But that's practically everything in gymnastics. .

Hehe, well said