WAG Getting to NIT/NAT Westerns / Easterns emails, spin off thread.

[Deleted member 14190]

Hi everyone,
This thread is in response to creating a new balance of athletes in each regions. Currently some regions are literally 4 times larger than others , yet each region has close to the same number of national spots. (example, region A has 200 level 10's, region B has 50 yet both send the same number of kids to nationals, plus or minus one spot). It is time for adjustments to be made to even the playing field. It is time for the regions to be redistributed and/or some type of guidelines be in place to help these athletes out in the bigger regions who are putting up enormous scores and not getting to nationals. Several proposed solutions have been brought up, (make nationals bigger, raise the minimum score, do a percentage, etc...). But in the end I think we can all agree (particularly the people in the larger regions), that having a child who scored a 37. at regionals and does not get to go, and then having a child score a 34. or 35 at another region who gets to go, well,,,, is a bit unfair. Multiply this by 50 and it becomes a real problem that has been evident for years.

What can we do? A lot actually, you do have a voice and sending a polite email to support change will go a long way to bringing it back up for another vote. So here goes,
After speaking with some of our regional board members and getting permission to this, it is now in your hands.

First off, we are not sending Anonymous emails, so please use a legit email and include your real name and that your child does in fact currently compete at some level,
Obviously you don't have to put your child name down.
Keep in mind that these people have dedicated themselves to this sport, they are wonderful people and are already in support of some type of change. Please be factual and feel free to put any type of statistics that you want, I know some of you like doing that stuff so now is your chance!
Subject, NIT / NAT / Western / Eastern Qualification process
TO; Shane Mcintyre,
Here is a link to the regional board members page with emails. Please keep in mind that Shane has volunteered to take this on, so send him your emails, and CC another rep if you happen to KNOW THEM. (in other words I don't want to be responsible for flooding everyones email boxes) Link Removed If you live on the east coast please feel free to CC a person on the regional board of your choice. (perhaps someone here can provide the different links to those, but if you google region 7 gymnastics etc... you will find the info). You can CC your state board rep as well.
My name is Perry , and I absolutely DID clear this with Shane and Dan just yesterday. Please do not send any negative emails to other regions (FYI, I heard region 2 is IN SUPPORT of raising the minimum score last year, so they did not vote it down, that is what I heard).
You do not need a child in level 9 or 10 at this time, remember this is to help each and every child in the future which includes all current compulsory kids.

Please type in your own words what you think about the current system and what you would like to see happen.
Please pass this on to anyone on your team who is in support and would like to send out an email.

Several potential solutions, feel free to add your own ideas.
1. Raise the minimum to a 35.7 or whatever
2. Reorganize the regions bases on the numbers and strength of upper levels
3. Go by a percentage
4. Create an East and West Superteam and pull top scores.
5. Get rid of NIT and create a 3 day National meet with more kids.
6. And Anything else you suggest

 

[MaryA]

CoachP, will you report back and let us know how many emails Mr. McIntire gets in the next couple weeks about this issue? It would be interesting to see what kind of response this thread gets.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

Sure, I will ask and then repeat this post to get more.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

Almost forgot, please put what region you are from, I think that showing a diversity of people around the nation will help.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

i've kept quiet on this. i don't think everyone understands the scope of the problem.

essentially, you have 8 states that support 90 percent of women's gymnastics. it's less for men.

the demographics of population and number of gym clubs are diminished even further when you go in to some of the states. there are states that have NO level 10's. there are states that have only 3 gyms to speak of. check the USAG site for clubs state to state.

the most experienced coaches actually work in those 8 states. they are saturated with experienced coaches all the while these gyms can't keep up with the population in some of these areas.

you have 8 age groups. top 7 seven make their respective regional team that goes to nationals. this means 56 total gymnasts coming from any region. if they didn't use the 34.00 all around qualifier metric, 3 of the regions would not field a full 56 member team representing their region. and i say this today not having looked at all the regional returns.

do you understand that no matter what metric is used, percentage etc; if a region does NOT HAVE 56 level 10's ...well they don't have 56 level 10's. capiche? and national will fill those slots from region 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 respectively.

nationals is supposed to be a representation of the ENTIRE USA and the USAG level 10 program. yes, there are kids with humongous all around scores that will be staying home and kids that barely made the 34.00 metric that will be competing.

8 times 56 is 448. 448 kids only. maybe 15 kids per age group will score near a 38. only a couple will break the 38.00 per age group.

if the metric was score by rank and file, i can certainly guarantee you that the majority of the states would not be represented at all. and only 4 regions would be taking ALL 448 spots.

now, i didn't fact check this today. this is an approximation from even just last year.

note...take region 5 for example. 5 states. 1 state has no level 10's. 1 has the most (nationally) by numbers level 10's (9's also) and there are so many clubs with so many athletes in 4 of the states that the coaches have kids competing in every single age group session.

if California got moved to Maine's region, California would STILL have all the kids (56 spots) for all the reasons stated above.

yes, there was talk years ago about moving Illinois to Region 4. if they actually did that, Illinois would consume most 56 spots at regionals. and the other states/clubs in this region who have good kids would be outnumbered.

everyone needs to look at the national map at USAG to truly get a picture of what states are in all of the regions. then go to the regional sites qualifiers to see where the kids are coming from in the states within those regions and how many. you'll see things like Florida consuming region 8 along with Georgia. i haven't looked, but i am sure no one qualified from Arkansas, Mississippi, etc; and the irony? level 10 nationals is IN Mississippi.

now please remember, i'm doing this off the top of my head. so if someone did qualify from Arkansas i'm sure you'll let me know. that goes for about 20 other states also.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

now go thru these results. 5/10/2013 and look at just HOW MANY states have level 10's. and you'll easily see the demographic issues.

http://usagym.org/pages/results/index.html

 

[Deleted member 14190]

i've kept quiet on this. i don't think everyone understands the scope of the problem.

essentially, you have 8 states that support 90 percent of women's gymnastics. it's less for men.

the demographics of population and number of gym clubs are diminished even further when you go in to some of the states. there are states that have NO level 10's. there are states that have only 3 gyms to speak of. check the USAG site for clubs state to state.

the most experienced coaches actually work in those 8 states. they are saturated with experienced coaches all the while these gyms can't keep up with the population in some of these areas.

you have 8 age groups. top 7 seven make their respective regional team that goes to nationals. this means 56 total gymnasts coming from any region. if they didn't use the 34.00 all around qualifier metric, 3 of the regions would not field a full 56 member team representing their region. and i say this today not having looked at all the regional returns.

do you understand that no matter what metric is used, percentage etc; if a region does NOT HAVE 56 level 10's ...well they don't have 56 level 10's. capiche? and national will fill those slots from region 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 respectively.

nationals is supposed to be a representation of the ENTIRE USA and the USAG level 10 program. yes, there are kids with humongous all around scores that will be staying home and kids that barely made the 34.00 metric that will be competing.

8 times 56 is 448. 448 kids only. maybe 15 kids per age group will score near a 38. only a couple will break the 38.00 per age group.

if the metric was score by rank and file, i can certainly guarantee you that the majority of the states would not be represented at all. and only 4 regions would be taking ALL 448 spots.

now, i didn't fact check this today. this is an approximation from even just last year.

note...take region 5 for example. 5 states. 1 state has no level 10's. 1 has the most (nationally) by numbers level 10's (9's also) and there are so many clubs with so many athletes in 4 of the states that the coaches have kids competing in every single age group session.

if California got moved to Maine's region, California would STILL have all the kids (56 spots) for all the reasons stated above.

yes, there was talk years ago about moving Illinois to Region 4. if they actually did that, Illinois would consume most 56 spots at regionals. and the other states/clubs in this region who have good kids would be outnumbered.

everyone needs to look at the national map at USAG to truly get a picture of what states are in all of the regions. then go to the regional sites qualifiers to see where the kids are coming from in the states within those regions and how many. you'll see things like Florida consuming region 8 along with Georgia. i haven't looked, but i am sure no one qualified from Arkansas, Mississippi, etc; and the irony? level 10 nationals is IN Mississippi.

now please remember, i'm doing this off the top of my head. so if someone did qualify from Arkansas i'm sure you'll let me know. that goes for about 20 other states also.

==
the problem is further enhanced when you get 4 powerhouse states together (Nor Cal, So Cal, NV, AZ) . So if Cali were moved to a weaker region they would probably consume most of the 56 spots, however currently they do not consume the 56 spots, not even close. We have Arizona and Nevada who consume many of these spots as well. So the real problem here in region one, isn't just our numbers, it's the saturation of excellent programs on top of that. Should the powers that be, move one of these states to region 2, (which i would go in a second) that would at least knock of 20 percent of the power up top and move it across the way. Meaning more quality kids would make it to NAT. It would also raise the quality in 2 I believe, (yes there are a few excellent programs in region 2

 

[gracyomalley]

Any chance this would raise the level of coaching/training/experience in the smaller states/regions? If so (as in by having some of the top programs/coaches competing in the presently less competitive groupings would there be a trickle down of experience?) Then I would say it would actually benefit everyone - frankly, no one WANTS to go to Nationals with a 34 if they have the chance with a few years of different training to go with a 37

 

[Deleted member 14190]

Any chance this would raise the level of coaching/training/experience in the smaller states/regions? If so (as in by having some of the top programs/coaches competing in the presently less competitive groupings would there be a trickle down of experience?) Then I would say it would actually benefit everyone - frankly, no one WANTS to go to Nationals with a 34 if they have the chance with a few years of different training to go with a 37

I would say absolutely. If you know you can't make it unless you score a 37, you work harder.

 

[gracyomalley]

I would say absolutely. If you know you can't make it unless you score a 37, you work harder.

I am hoping you mean the coaches work harder - because I think it would be unfair to assume that the kid with the 34 from the state with one L10 (making this up of course) isn't doing their absolute best with what they've got to work with - there's no way that kid would make it to L10, even there, (or maybe especially there) without a strong work ethic!

But I do get your point!