WAG Getting to NATs/NIT from regionals - rant

[HelenZ]

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.

 

[HelenZ]

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,

 

[HelenZ]

Did some very quick research and math(so numbers might not be exact) but here is the number of level 10's that each Region had competing at their Regional championships this weekend:

Region 1 - 225
Region 2 - 50
Region 3 - 181
Region 4 - 149
Region 5 - 261
Region 6 - 143
Region 7 - 163
Region 8 - 259

I don't think it is insulting to the gymnasts and families of Region 2(or others) to point out that this numbers disparity isn't fair and needs to be corrected. Every gymnast in Region 2 that gets a 34 goes to Nationals(unless they happen to be in an age group that has 8 or 9 kids, then a couple with 35's might stay home some years) while in the larger Regions dozens of kids with 37's stay home. These are the numbers, they aren't insults.

And I completely disagree with the notion expressed in the thread that the smaller Regions wouldn't be open to redistribution that would even out the numbers(and would essentially mean their current gymnasts would get fewer spots). I know, at least in one Region's case, THEY ARE.

 

[HelenZ]

New to this board, sorry I posted this before. Region 7's Sr C's and D's were not posted on meetscores yet, so add 60,

Region 7 223 girls

 

[wandrewsjr]

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,

You are correct. Hopefully someone as USAG will be able to do the research better than I can do with a 30 minute internet search

 

[Deleted member D3987]

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 regret that i can't explain it well enough for you to understand the scope of this issue. and i don't have the time to look up where those 17 states fall within their regions. the total in the region does not tell the story. it's how many from each state in the region total that represent what states have/don't have 10's. understand? like i said, if Wyoming doesn't have 10's, what difference does it make how many 10's that Region has. my point was that someday Wyoming might have a 10. and if they were in 4 of the Regions, that 1 kid may not make it out until 11th or 12th grade if at all.

that was my point. if you put Michigan in 4 they will overwhelm those athletes in 4. it will knock out several kids from 4. Region 5 is the hardest region to get out of. has been for several years. they are the first go to region to fill spots cause so many don't make it. and look this year to see how many didn't make it and what their scores were.

and then there is "cyclical". these numbers go up and down cyclically. and because your estimates show the numbers going up in some regions does not mean that the "quality" will be better or what gymnastics will translate to all around scores. it's a very complicated issue.

i can tell you you that much thought went in to all this over the years. the "powers that be" did not just blindfold themselves and stick their hand in a hat to pull out the answer/system".

 

[sce]

This is very similar to how the boys are done. There is a qualifying score, and then regions are given an allotment. Now, regions can fill their allotment with gymnasts below the qualifying score. It seems to be working for the boys. It allows the larger regions to have a proportional number of kids.

I'm surprised the girls' system is done so differently, the boys' system makes sense.

 

[gymgal]

So, dunno, you obviously know the history of how they came up with the qualifications for Nationals. Hopefully you can provide some answers. Why wasn't it just done on a percentage basis in the first place? If you are a smaller region, you send less to Nationals. It's not about which states are represented at that point. It's about having the regions represented equitably. I just don't get how/why they decided to go with the whole "7 per age division" set up. Why have a region title for every age division? Overkill... Why not keep it simple like how meets figure out team awards. At the end of the meet the top scores are tallied across all age divisions for each level. One set of team awards is given out per level, not one for each age division.

 

[wandrewsjr]

i regret that i can't explain it well enough for you to understand the scope of this issue. and i don't have the time to look up where those 17 states fall within their regions. the total in the region does not tell the story. it's how many from each state in the region total that represent what states have/don't have 10's. understand? like i said, if Wyoming doesn't have 10's, what difference does it make how many 10's that Region has. my point was that someday Wyoming might have a 10. and if they were in 4 of the Regions, that 1 kid may not make it out until 11th or 12th grade if at all.

that was my point. if you put Michigan in 4 they will overwhelm those athletes in 4. it will knock out several kids from 4. Region 5 is the hardest region to get out of. has been for several years. they are the first go to region to fill spots cause so many don't make it. and look this year to see how many didn't make it and what their scores were.

and then there is "cyclical". these numbers go up and down cyclically. and because your estimates show the numbers going up in some regions does not mean that the "quality" will be better or what gymnastics will translate to all around scores. it's a very complicated issue.

i can tell you you that much thought went in to all this over the years. the "powers that be" did not just blindfold themselves and stick their hand in a hat to pull out the answer/system".

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.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

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.

as i said, some of the states will NEVER have level 10's. they never have as far back as i can remember. their demographics will never have anyone opening a gym there. and if they did, coaches won't go there to coach cause they would rather be in others states other than Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Maine, New Hampshire, Montana, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Idaho, Delaware, New Hampshire, Vermont, West Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho, etc;

can you see how many states that is? now look how many 10's they have within their region.

and nothing against those states, okay? i'm just pointing out that their demographics don't facilitate the numbers of gyms that a state like California has. they never have and they never will. but if they have a 10, everyone would like to see them get out of their regional meet. and in some regions, that would NEVER happen.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

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.

they don't have any 10's to speak of. and i wasn't being snarky and i think you know that. some of the states have no 10's. it doesn't matter what you might change for them.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

So, dunno, you obviously know the history of how they came up with the qualifications for Nationals. Hopefully you can provide some answers. Why wasn't it just done on a percentage basis in the first place? If you are a smaller region, you send less to Nationals. It's not about which states are represented at that point. It's about having the regions represented equitably. I just don't get how/why they decided to go with the whole "7 per age division" set up. Why have a region title for every age division? Overkill... Why not keep it simple like how meets figure out team awards. At the end of the meet the top scores are tallied across all age divisions for each level. One set of team awards is given out per level, not one for each age division.

i have to go now. i'll come back tonight.

 

[wandrewsjr]

as i said, some of the states will NEVER have level 10's. they never have as far back as i can remember. their demographics will never have anyone opening a gym there. and if they did, coaches won't go there to coach cause they would rather be in others states other than Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Maine, New Hampshire, Montana, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Idaho, Delaware, New Hampshire, Vermont, West Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho, etc;

can you see how many states that is? now look how many 10's they have within their region.

and nothing against those states, okay? i'm just pointing out that their demographics don't facilitate the numbers of gyms that a state like California has. they never have and they never will. but if they have a 10, everyone would like tosee them get out of their regional meet. and in some regions, that would NEVER happen.

OK, I actually don't understand this one. Some of the states you list are in the Regions that are the most competitive so they CURRENTLY have no chance of getting out of regionals.

 

[gymgal]

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.

 

[wandrewsjr]

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 one 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.

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

 

[Deleted member 14190]

and NIT was started BECAUSE there were so many athletes. and those athletes that would NOT be seen by college coaches. opportunity is now there for both groups and the college coaches already know what kids crapped on themselves at Regionals and made NIT's and the others that may have had the MEET OF THEIR LIFE and are in the "Nationals" division. the college coaches aren't stupid. they know who everyone is.

and as i have stated before, they really aren't concerned with how they do at this meet (seniors). they are there looking at 8th and 9th graders and others younger coming up. maybe there are those out there that have a problem with that. but this is the system we have and it won't change anytime soon.

and before you all may send emails, you need to seriously consider what i have told you. if USAG changes things to accommodate what you think would be better, i'm telling you that only 6-8 states will be represented. understand? if the state of Wyoming has no 10's, then they have no 10's. and there are many more states that have no 10's than the 6-8 that do. it is the lack of 10's in demographic/region areas that cause the issue. NOT the way the system is.

and as i compared, if Illinois were moved to Region 4 as was discussed a couple of years ago, what do you all think it would mean for Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska and Missouri? look how many 10's they have and then compare their top 7 in each age group to those from Illinois at either their State or Regional meet.

those from Hawaii already have a huge disadvantage. look at their numbers. then look at Region 2's. and they have to come "in country" to even compete. and along with all those expenses required to come mainland. if they were put in Region 1 for example, NO ONE from Hawaii would make it out of Regionals because Region 1's numbers are so overwhelming.

honestly folks, think serious before you start sending out emails. be careful what you wish for...

==

Currently the regions are not equal in population (not even close), so yes parents of the larger regions, be careful what you wish for, your kids may actually make it Nationals if a change goes through....

 

[Deleted member 14190]

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.

==
Please email this. These are very good ideas, and the more the better.

 

[wandrewsjr]

==
Please email this. These are very good ideas, and the more the better.

Would need to do better research on the numbers first. These are just from a quick 30 internet search for results and some mental math(someone already pointed out an error in the region 7 numbers). But it does seem like the ball is rolling, at least in the western half of the country, where the imbalance is so great.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

Nothing will ever completely resolve this issue, so lets do nothing about it, IS NOT a solution.... It's time to try and get something up for a vote ...

 

[wandrewsjr]

i regret that i can't explain it well enough for you to understand the scope of this issue. and i don't have the time to look up where those 17 states fall within their regions. the total in the region does not tell the story. it's how many from each state in the region total that represent what states have/don't have 10's. understand? like i said, if Wyoming doesn't have 10's, what difference does it make how many 10's that Region has. my point was that someday Wyoming might have a 10. and if they were in 4 of the Regions, that 1 kid may not make it out until 11th or 12th grade if at all.

that was my point. if you put Michigan in 4 they will overwhelm those athletes in 4. it will knock out several kids from 4. Region 5 is the hardest region to get out of. has been for several years. they are the first go to region to fill spots cause so many don't make it. and look this year to see how many didn't make it and what their scores were.

and then there is "cyclical". these numbers go up and down cyclically. and because your estimates show the numbers going up in some regions does not mean that the "quality" will be better or what gymnastics will translate to all around scores. it's a very complicated issue.

i can tell you you that much thought went in to all this over the years. the "powers that be" did not just blindfold themselves and stick their hand in a hat to pull out the answer/system".

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.