WAG Getting to NATs/NIT from regionals - rant

[jaimoe00]

Just to clarify Region 7's Sr C's and Sr D's scores were not posted on meetscores yet. You can add 60 more girls to the 163.

Region 7 - 223 girls approximately,

Here's your Region 7 Sr C's and D's on MSO

http://meetscoresonline.com/Results/15857

Sr C = 32 and Sr D = 21

 

[Natasha]

I don't think doing some tweaking to balance the regions would cause all the states to go unrepresented. The JO National team last year was made up of gymnasts from 17 states. I think the girls good enough to finish top 4 at nationals would qualify no matter what the system.

Moving Illinois from 5 to 4 was never a good idea. You just replace the problem of 5 being too big with the problem of 4 being too big.

I get that we want the whole country to be represented. But we drew the lines in the first place, right? I don't understand what's wrong with redrawing the lines, just a little, to help balance the numbers just a little better. When the lines were drawn did they really envision that some regions would have 5 to 6 times as many gymnasts as the others? What about something like this:

Move Norcal to region 2, Michigan to region 4, New Jersey to region 6, North and South Carolina to region 7

Current level 10 numbers at regionals
region 1 - 225
region 2 - 50
region 3 - 181
region 4 - 149
region 5 - 261
region 6 - 143
region 7 - 163
region 8 - 259
estimated new numbers
region 1 - 165
region 2 - 110
region 3 - 181
region 4 - 209
region 5 - 201
region 6 - 203
region 7 - 168
region 8 - 194

Perfect? Absolutely not. And I am sure that there might be some better moves that could be made. But we could bring the numbers a little closer to balanced by just moving a few border states to the next regions. And I think the smaller states will still have a chance. And it might even give the smaller states that are currently in a large region dominated by a couple large states a better chance.

I like this idea. But, you may want to check your R7 numbers and estimated new numbers as moving both NC and SC would would raise it by way more than 5 girls as NC is very competitive. I think they may have even led the #s for jrs going to nationals in R8 this year. And, geographically it might make more sense to move TN rather than SC and their L10 # are pretty similar.

 

[Natasha]

Dunno, c'mon, I understand how complicated the issue is. "I regret I can't explain it well enough for you to understand the scope of the issue". Really?! I get it. I would like to see that potential level 10 from Wyoming get a chance. But I would also like to see those potential level 10 from Arkansas and Missisppi get a chance, too.

As a parent of a kid from a weak L8 state (but we do have some L10's and one or two each year that do manage to make it to Nationals or NIT OR are 1 slot away!) I completely agree with this. It is frustrating. Moving just one of the 3 strong states out would give those top girls that end up just outside of qualifying for NIT a chance. Two girls from our state this year were 10th and 11th in their respective groups.

 

[wallinbl]

I was just going to post this about North Carolina, they are definitely holding their own.

Southeastern is there, and they seem to turn out a lot of high scoring level 10's.

 

[bookworm]

I am totally in agreement with Dunno on this. Is the current system perfect? No its not. However, what the current system does is provide each gymnast in a state with a path to a competition above and beyone thier state championship. At the Regional meet, the athletes then know that in order to move to the next level they must finish in the top 6 or 12 in each age division for Lvl 9 or top 9 (JO Nat plus NIT) in each age division for Lvl 10. The path to the penultimate competition for a gymnast's level is clearly laid out for them. Are there going to be some high scoring athletes left at home because thier region's spots are filled by higher scoring gymnasts? Yes, that is a fact of life for thier region. Could the regions be re-wickered to balance the numbers? Sure, but then you have to figure out how often you are going to do this and what the basis for realigning is going to be (ie, how far out of balance means its time for realignment).

I'm with you Meet Director (and Dunno) ....when my oldest went to Easterns in 2009, the qualification out of Regionals was a percentage of the competitors in the age group (like what's been proposed by some here) and I think 9 of the 30 in her age group went to Easterns; some age groups qualified as little as 3 and some as many as 12...by the time my youngest went to Easterns in 2009, it was the top 6 in the age group qualified ...and we were told that USAG wanted the Level 9 path to be similar to the qualification to JOs.....I 'm thinking if they moved AWAY from a percentage qualification back then that there was some research behind it...

 

[Deleted member D3987]

Dunno, check your stats. NC has 20 or 21 gymnasts going to nationals, and that doesn't count the NIT spots. Given that only about 60 (with petitions) qualified to regionals, I would say that is a pretty impressive percentage in our region and in the country. Now, they all came from 7 gyms this year but in years past, other gyms have had qualifiers as well. And really 7-10 gyms isn't bad given NC's size, population.

Can they compete against CA, TX, and the like for coaches? No, but it holds its own in the region.

yes, i agree gymgal. it's a bumper crop year (no pun intended) for NC. it might be the most they have ever had. but sustaining those numbers and increasing said same are very difficult year after year.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

I am sorry to be a quibbler here, Dunno, but I disagree with the notion that Region 5 is the hardest to get out of and that R5 is the go to Region to fill spots. Regions 8, 3 and 7 each won two age groups at JO's last year, so they would be the first go to in those age groups. Regions 1 and 5 each won one age group.

And if you look at all the regionals to see who didn't make it, regions 8 and 1 have just as many quality level 10's as region 5 who didn't qualify.

this doesn't have to do with the quality. it's quantity. and it has been stated by coaches everywhere that they are glad they are not in Region 5. last year was the first year falling short after 20 years of dominance by region 5. as i said, it's cyclical. Region 5 could not prevail forever but they have the demographics and population to continue again at some point.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

Southeastern is there, and they seem to turn out a lot of high scoring level 10's.

they are excellent. that's 1 gym. again, it 's not the quality but the quantity. and which states do you think have the highest population of coaches? you should see those numbers. population of coaches equates with pay which equates to demographics. even coaches that come from small gyms with a higher cost of living area get paid higher than gyms whose gyms are bigger but are in lower cost of living area. you should see some of the surveys. you need coaches to produce level 10's. this is 1 reason why some states will never have 10's in numbers.

 

[gymgal]

yes, i agree gymgal. it's a bumper crop year (no pun intended) for NC. it might be the most they have ever had. but sustaining those numbers and increasing said same are very difficult year after year.

You may be right - We will just have to wait to see what the next few years holds for NC. But last year there were about 15 and several more that made it to NIT. This year there were 20. There are more gyms with Qualifiers too. It used to be just a few. I can also say that the girls coming up the levels in the next few years are just as strong as this year's qualifiers. And a lot of this year's girls are in the younger jr divisions so they will (presumably) be around for a while. Time will tell....

 

[bookworm]

I'm with you Meet Director (and Dunno) ....when my oldest went to Easterns in 2005, the qualification out of Regionals was a percentage of the competitors in the age group (like what's been proposed by some here) and I think 9 of the 30 in her age group went to Easterns; some age groups qualified as little as 3 and some as many as 12...by the time my youngest went to Easterns in 2009, it was the top 6 in the age group qualified ....

Just saw my typo...my oldest went to Easterns in 2005 (not 2009) with a percentage qualification system...

 

[gracyomalley]

Just a lowly parent living with the reality of kids in a region where the numbers are so low that its near to impossible to get quality, experienced coaches to stick around...both for boys and girls.

On my sons' team EVERY boy L5 and up qualified for regionals - and all except 2 placed in the top 1/3 of their age group, with multiple kids in the top 10.....but right now they are coached by an inexperienced college kid - and despite several years of trying to change that (especially for one super talented kid going into level 10, future stars for years, etc...) there are no qualified applicants on the horizon. My DD team has a great head coach - and has rotated through about 10 other coaches in her 4 years of competing....NOT rec coach turn over, but team - due to cost of living, and number of athletes, etc....and this team consistently gets girls to L10....a feat in itself in our area!

I'm not saying the regions aren't possibly mis-aligned - but Dunno is very right about the difficulties for the smaller states...

 

[skschlag]

Just a lowly parent living with the reality of kids in a region where the numbers are so low that its near to impossible to get quality, experienced coaches to stick around...both for boys and girls.

On my sons' team EVERY boy L5 and up qualified for regionals - and all except 2 placed in the top 1/3 of their age group, with multiple kids in the top 10.....but right now they are coached by an inexperienced college kid - and despite several years of trying to change that (especially for one super talented kid going into level 10, future stars for years, etc...) there are no qualified applicants on the horizon. My DD team has a great head coach - and has rotated through about 10 other coaches in her 4 years of competing....NOT rec coach turn over, but team - due to cost of living, and number of athletes, etc....and this team consistently gets girls to L10....a feat in itself in our area!

I'm not saying the regions aren't possibly mis-aligned - but Dunno is very right about the difficulties for the smaller states...

This is so true. We have a coach, but his time is very divided. HE coaches levels 5-10. He has college kids that help, and one great coach that is there when he can be..and not at work. He ahs been trying to find an assistance for 2 years. Nothing. It is so hard

 

[saddlupasb]

I live in the 'red-headed step child' state of Region 5; Kentucky. Gymnastics is a very small sport here and it is hard to get parents to commit their children to the amount of time it takes to do higher level gymnastics. The most talented ones quit because it is hard work. Also, we have the same issues with coaches because most highly successful coaches don't want to deal with all of the different things that are Kentucky Gymnastics. There are exceptions and hopefully we are on the upswing.

Region 5 itself is a lower scoring Region. It is hard to get a 38.00 at our Regionals. Those lower scores are not a sign of lower level gymnastics as Region 5 does quite well at Nationals every year. That being said, I think the percentage thing would be much better than setting a score.

 

[Granny Smith]

My dd is in R7. Although it seems to be an ongoing joke with lots of us parents, here is the ideal thing to do. Raise my dd through the levels in R7, then when she is a sophomore in HS, move to R2! ha ha Sadly, my dd is now a senior in HS and we are still in R7!

When it comes down to exposure and "being seen by college coaches" it all comes back to the gymnast selling herself and cultivating the relationships with college coaches way before Nationals. That is why you see girls who have never made Nationals who have college scholarships. If you wait till Nationals to "show your stuff" to get the college coaches interested in you, you are probably too late!

As for the Regions, well yeah it sucks, but the girls know going into it what they are up against. My dd had 36 girls in her age group at Regionals this past weekend. Overall every age group for Nationals has the same number of girls. They cut at those birth dates and then the chips fall were they may. Some regions have less in an age group while others have more, but in the end, they still all add up to an equal number of girls in each age group.

 

[gymdog]

I don't feel like it's impossible to make it in region 7. Depends on the age group and year, like Bookworm said sometimes it's in the cards, sometimes it's not. But girls made it in some groups with 36 scores or didn't fully hit one event. Region 1, 3, and 5 seems more difficult overall with a few states in those regions dominating. I understand we have some big numbers nowadays, but I'm not sure how to redraw it either way. I'm not opposed to the percentage idea but that does seem to get complicated and allow a few geographic areas to dominate which I expect USAG wanted to move away from. No easy solution. Training opportunities and competition isn't as easily available in these smaller regions.

 

[3rd_time_around]

How about when we get to the point that the largest region is 5 times the size of the smallest, it's time to redraw the lines. Try to bring the numbers back to a balance of no region is more than twice as big as any other. Don't need perfection. Would likely only have to revisit every generation(say 25 years), to account for major population shifts.

yes, Region 8 is so big, and it's so discouraging to score a 37+ and not make it to even NIT. I'm all for NC moving to another region, LOL!

 

[3rd_time_around]

I am sorry to be a quibbler here, Dunno, but I disagree with the notion that Region 5 is the hardest to get out of and that R5 is the go to Region to fill spots. Regions 8, 3 and 7 each won two age groups at JO's last year, so they would be the first go to in those age groups. Regions 1 and 5 each won one age group.

And if you look at all the regionals to see who didn't make it, regions 8 and 1 have just as many quality level 10's as region 5 who didn't qualify.

Region 8 is TOUGH! Between NC and FL, and now GA, the competition is fierce. And barring the famous "elite" gyms in TX and CA, Region 8 has some teams that if you are in their session, you might as well plan on not winning.

 

[JBS]

Surprised more don't move to different regions for part of the year.

 

[raenndrops]

==
You have to run a session of kids through, having more than one session and then deciding a winner usually doesn't fly. So at the end of each session you need a conclusion, otherwise you will actually have less kids at nationals.

They can learn patience. There are a lot of meets in which the team result isn't known immediately (when ages are in different sessions). Do a Junior and a Senior winning team. They can still award the INDIVIDUAL awards after each session. Just hold off on the TEAM awards.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

They can learn patience. There are a lot of meets in which the team result isn't known immediately (when ages are in different sessions). Do a Junior and a Senior winning team. They can still award the INDIVIDUAL awards after each session. Just hold off on the TEAM awards.

=
Yes, team awards for sure can be put off until the end of the meet. I think I read something in the post and thought it was addressing two subjects, which it wasn't. My mistake.