WAG Getting to NATs/NIT from regionals - rant

[Deleted member D3987]

And I'm willing to bet that those saying they wouldn't want their kid to "go to Nationals with a 34" would say otherwise if that opportunity presented itself...who would turn down a trip to JOs because your region as a whole isn't that competitive? It's where you live and just how it is in your region...

And I'll add a disclaimer, my girls have qualified to JOs with well above the minimum so I don't have a dog in this fight....

yes! the whole post. i've seen those kids with 35's half kill themselves to prove they belong there and how happy they are to be there and represent their state/region. there really is no feeling like it. that enthusiasm.

and if they didn't get to go, they can't "bring it back" to their states, regions and gyms. it's what it's all about. and in the final analysis, those kids won't be scholarship shopping at any D1 school. it may be the greatest thing they ever did in gymnastics in their whole career. and a career that may stop after high school. THAT is what gymnastics is supposed to be.

 

[bogwoppit]

this is why i would be for a eastern/western national qualifying meet and then take kids from 2 meets.

This is how it is done in Canada. It works and makes sense.

 

[sce]

or how about this coachp...since you say you're so overloaded out by you, and i know that you are...region 1 is very competitive....how about we lobby for Cali to be moved to Region 5? want to come to their high tech camp?

that would certainly increase the chances of other kids from Nevada, Arizona and Utah to get to Nationals.

I think redistributing the regions is not necessarily the answer, as there is a lot of other logistics this effects. But what about doing allotments more like the boys program? Base the number who can qualify on the number of athletes at each level in each region.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

can you believe i typed that...geesh...

==

Based on my numerous errors in spelling here, I kept quite and just cut and pasted it.
Referring to the post that you talk about mixing the regions with N Dakota etc...

Here are the cold hard facts, this is the total number of kids in each division this year at regionals. (and keep in mind that these regions are right next to each other).
Level 10,

Region 2 JrA 7 vs. 35 in R1
Region 2 JrB 3 vs. 31 in R1
Region 2 JrC 7 vs. 25 in R1
Region 2 JrD 8 vs. 30 in R1
Region 2 SrA 7 vs. 28 in R1
Region 2 SrB 8 vs. 25 in R1
Region 2. SrC 7 vs. 31 in R1
Region 2 SrD 5... vs. 20 in R1


By moving one state over it adds about 5 or so more kids per session into R2 . Meaning most of the R2 kids will still have the opportunity to make it to Nat / Nit even with this move.
So I really don't see this as a drastic cut throat move. 4 to 7 athletes added in each session does not flood the market.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

yes! the whole post. i've seen those kids with 35's half kill themselves to prove they belong there and how happy they are to be there and represent their state/region. there really is no feeling like it. that enthusiasm.

and if they didn't get to go, they can't "bring it back" to their states, regions and gyms. it's what it's all about. and in the final analysis, those kids won't be scholarship shopping at any D1 school. it may be the greatest thing they ever did in gymnastics in their whole career. and a career that may stop after high school. THAT is what gymnastics is supposed to be.

And that appears to be where we disagree. I don't think a person should be granted an entry based on demographics over performance. But I am all for a Eastern/Western L10 meet.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

I think redistributing the regions is not necessarily the answer, as there is a lot of other logistics this effects. But what about doing allotments more like the boys program? Base the number who can qualify on the number of athletes at each level in each region.

==
They did it a while back in level 9 (not sure about 10), and i don't remember why it didn't work. Anyone?

 

[Deleted member 14190]

==

Based on my numerous errors in spelling here, I kept quite and just cut and pasted it.
Referring to the post that you talk about mixing the regions with N Dakota etc...

Here are the cold hard facts, this is the total number of kids in each division this year at regionals. (and keep in mind that these regions are right next to each other).
Level 10,

Region 2 JrA 7 vs. 35 in R1
Region 2 JrB 3 vs. 31 in R1
Region 2 JrC 7 vs. 25 in R1
Region 2 JrD 8 vs. 30 in R1
Region 2 SrA 7 vs. 28 in R1
Region 2 SrB 8 vs. 25 in R1
Region 2. SrC 7 vs. 31 in R1
Region 2 SrD 5... vs. 20 in R1


By moving one state over it adds about 5 or so more kids per session into R2 . Meaning most of the R2 kids will still have the opportunity to make it to Nat / Nit even with this move.
So I really don't see this as a drastic cut throat move. 4 to 7 athletes added in each session does not flood the market.

=
Get it, "quite" subtle humor.

 

[bookworm]

==
They did it a while back in level 9 (not sure about 10), and i don't remember why it didn't work. Anyone?

It was done with a percentage in 2005 for 9 Easterns but shortly after , the level 9 Regional meet moved to taking 6 from every age group so it would be similar to the qualification to JOs...

 

[LizzieLac]

I'll preface this with I know nothing, my DD is "hoping" to be level 7 next year and will probably be lucky to ever make it to level 9, and my gym always has a few 9s and 10s make it to eastern/westerns, nationals, and NIT.

I have always viewed "regionals" as girls entering a competition for the top spot amongst their peers for the opportuntity to represent their region at the next level. Moving states into different regions, and making different age groups will never change that underlying premise. And the issue of kids "winning" AA with 35 in one age group at some meet and another kid taking 3rd with a 36 AA happens at all levels, at all meets, in all states. It kind of sucks, but it what we all signed up for.

 

[gasrgoose]

Why do they take the top 6 from each age group, rather than the highest scores no matter the age in levels 9 & 10? But in 7 & 8 they do take the highest scores regardless of age.

 

[txgymfan]

Dunno, you keep writing that we don't understand the complexities of the situation. Let me see if I clearly understand the basics of your position.
1. You want the best if each region as they are currently represented at JO Nationals.
2. You think that underrepresented states have enough going against them ( distance from quality competition, lack of qualified coaches distance from mentor coaches) without being shut out of Nationals.

You think JO nationals should work more like the Senate than the House with equal representation for all regions regardless of population,

Therefore
3. You think if states were shut out of Nationals due to scores then the remaining coaches might quit teaching gymnastics or at least quit USAG

4 You think that the quality of gymnastics in those states and the US as a whole will suffer. .


The flip side thinks that JO Nationals should work more like the House of Representatives with some representation for all (not none) but more emphasis should be based on population ( and in this case scores) and the regions should be occasionally reevaluated based on population. If the states or regions with less population are less apparent at Nationals then that is the cost of not having higher level gymnasts. The coaches will either have to find a way to adapt and adjust or we will lose those gyms. This side thinks it is more important to have the best gymnasts represented rather than the regions ( as they currently stand) represented evenly.


I think that most of us do understand both sides and personally I side more on the second than the first. I do see value in having all regions represented. However, I think the completion should be more about the best of the best than the best of the current regions.

That is my summary of this thread. Feel free to correct my interpretations.

 

[happychaos]

Dunno, you keep writing that we don't understand the complexities of the situation. Let me see if I clearly understand the basics of your position.
1. You want the best if each region as they are currently represented at JO Nationals.
2. You think that underrepresented states have enough going against them ( distance from quality competition, lack of qualified coaches distance from mentor coaches) without being shut out of Nationals.

You think JO nationals should work more like the Senate than the House with equal representation for all regions regardless of population,

Therefore
3. You think if states were shut out of Nationals due to scores then the remaining coaches might quit teaching gymnastics or at least quit USAG

4 You think that the quality of gymnastics in those states and the US as a whole will suffer. .


The flip side thinks that JO Nationals should work more like the House of Representatives with some representation for all (not none) but more emphasis should be based on population ( and in this case scores) and the regions should be occasionally reevaluated based on population. If the states or regions with less population are less apparent at Nationals then that is the cost of not having higher level gymnasts. The coaches will either have to find a way to adapt and adjust or we will lose those gyms. This side thinks it is more important to have the best gymnasts represented rather than the regions ( as they currently stand) represented evenly.


I think that most of us do understand both sides and personally I side more on the second than the first. I do see value in having all regions represented. However, I think the completion should be more about the best of the best than the best of the current regions.

That is my summary of this thread. Feel free to correct my interpretations.

What a great analogy! I also side with the second scenario, at least for JO's. It seems like Nationals should be a "best of the best" meet, not a "Regional sampler", so to speak. This doesn't mean there isn't a place for a meet with all regions represented equally, but a true National Championship should really involve the best athletes, regardless of region, IMO.

 

[bookworm]

This whole discussion reminds me of the discussions that happen during the Olympics with the 2 per country rule for qualifying for the AA competition....Jordyn Weiber was better than 56 other competitors in the all around but due to the RULES, she watched from the stands...and I'm sure there were other athletes more qualified than the last 10 in the AA competition who scored 50 or below, but again, due to the rules that allow countries such as Israel, Argentina, Poland among others to qualify their athletes to the Olympics so there is a representation of many nations, good gymnasts sit home....think of the weaker regions for JOs in a similar manner...it happens top to bottom in this sport...

 

[skschlag]

And it happens in all sports. Teams are chosen from conferences, or states, or regions, and go to Nationals. Even if a state has 3 teams better than a team from another state, each state sends 1 or 2, or whatever the rules are. Basketball, tball, football, etc.

I don't have a girl, and I do like the way the boys do it, with allotments. But, I know in our region that not every boy had the qualifying score of 80, so some boys might be sitting home that scored higher than others. Boys don't have another meet (NIT), just nationals.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

Dunno, you keep writing that we don't understand the complexities of the situation. Let me see if I clearly understand the basics of your position.
1. You want the best if each region as they are currently represented at JO Nationals.
2. You think that underrepresented states have enough going against them ( distance from quality competition, lack of qualified coaches distance from mentor coaches) without being shut out of Nationals.

You think JO nationals should work more like the Senate than the House with equal representation for all regions regardless of population,

Therefore
3. You think if states were shut out of Nationals due to scores then the remaining coaches might quit teaching gymnastics or at least quit USAG

4 You think that the quality of gymnastics in those states and the US as a whole will suffer. .


The flip side thinks that JO Nationals should work more like the House of Representatives with some representation for all (not none) but more emphasis should be based on population ( and in this case scores) and the regions should be occasionally reevaluated based on population. If the states or regions with less population are less apparent at Nationals then that is the cost of not having higher level gymnasts. The coaches will either have to find a way to adapt and adjust or we will lose those gyms. This side thinks it is more important to have the best gymnasts represented rather than the regions ( as they currently stand) represented evenly.


I think that most of us do understand both sides and personally I side more on the second than the first. I do see value in having all regions represented. However, I think the completion should be more about the best of the best than the best of the current regions.

That is my summary of this thread. Feel free to correct my interpretations.

no, on number 3. that wasn't me. but i do think they would eventually leave a club and go to another with stronger programs, states and regions.

and the President can win the "popular" vote and still lose... thanks to the Electoral votes.

 

[txgymfan]

Ok. And I am not getting into the second part of your statement. I was simply making an analogy.

 

[profmom]

There seems to be a lot of consensus on the solution to this problem among parents who have boys competing.

But please, let us not turn to the Electoral College as a model for ANYTHING!

 

[my4buffaloes]

I think every state and every region should be represented. But what would be wrong with then allotting a certain # of spots to the highest scoring level 10's in the nation that did not qualify for NAT/NITs already? It could be a set 50 spots or it could be anyone over a 37 AA, I don't know the best way. But why not keep giving spots to help take care of some of the discrepancy?

 

[coachmolly]

I think every state and every region should be represented. But what would be wrong with then allotting a certain # of spots to the highest scoring level 10's in the nation that did not qualify for NAT/NITs already? It could be a set 50 spots or it could be anyone over a 37 AA, I don't know the best way. But why not keep giving spots to help take care of some of the discrepancy?

I like that idea- sort of like a wild card bid for the top scoring kids- regardless of region perhaps?- to compete at either JOs or the NIT. The only problem is, I think it might throw numbers over the top. They could create a separate session for these kids, but I think that would defeat the purpose. But it could create an opportunity for those 37+ scores that don't qualify to get to compete in some capacity.

 

[my4buffaloes]

Yes it would be regardless of region. Just rank all the kids by score (who didn't make it) and let a set amount in. But then do they go to NATs or NITs?