WAG JO Nationals and NIT

[Canadian_gym_mom]

Haha guess we were posting at the same time. Total 9/10's for R7 that were registered/expected was over 650 (from the 9's meet scores posted for 390). The #'s in my post above were taken from earlier info posted

Our Provincial Championships were held in one weekend with 750 girls registered in 5 levels from age 9 to 17+. In addition the men's championship was held at the same location at the same time. There were 3 gyms set up at the venue (2 women's, 1 men's). It was a 4 day event, Thursday to Sunday. So just saying it is very possible.

 

[gymgal]

Region 8 qualifies each state's top 50% of level 7/8 gymnasts. So if FL has 200 level 8s, then 100 get to go; if MS has 20 level 8s, then 10 get to go. It's not if one state has 50% of the level 7/8 in the region then they get to send 50% of the athletes for the competiion, each state sends their top 50%.

. Sorry. Not correct. NC had 40 spots for level 7 and 56 for level 8. NC had almost 200 level 7s compete at states. If we got 50%, that would mean we would have gotten 95 slots.


From region 8 website:
The number of gymnasts at Level 8 Regionals is 344 + all ties. The number of team members is 64 (8 per state with 4 scores counting for team). There are no petitions accepted to Level 8 Regionals. Each state turns into RACC the number of Level 8 athletes in their state with 32.00 AA and with 34.00 AA. A percentage for each state is figured for the 221 places for the 32.00 AA number by the designated deadline, from all 8 states. and a separate percentage is figured for the additional 54 athletes at a 34.00 AA. by the designated deadline, from all 8 states....

The same is true for level 7. The total slots might be different, since this is taken from a few years ago but the way the percentages are determined is the same. For instance, This past year, they increased the total number of slots for level 7, because they were able to add 1 more session.

 

[bookworm]

I 've been in this sport for 14+ years and I don't see this system changing ...every year you hear cries of "not fair" for various reasons...from those with 30+ in their age group; those that see girls with 34s go to JOs; those that wish their kid had only 10 in their age group...Some years this system has worked in our favor and others years we've sweated it out to make it to JOs so I think it all balances out in the end.

I can't envision a system that would equalize the states and the regions in terms of numbers. I really think THAT would be a logistical nightmare. I do think the addition of the NIT has been great as it allows the girl who, as Dunno put it, had a lousy regional meet, to still compete on the national scale.

 

[gymmomtoo]

I can't imagine trying to balance the numbers every year--as bookworm said, that would be a logistical nightmare every year! I think the filling in from other regions makes it even out a bit more. It's never going to completely fair--but I haven't seen a sport yet that is! My youngest daughter does swimming and some sections are tougher than others--have to make top 2 to qualify to State. Which means some kids don't make it that are a lot faster than other kids that do.

 

[Granny Smith]

Nobody is saying that it isn't possible to do Regionals in Region 7 all in 1 weekend, but it just doesn't work that way here. Being in Region 7, I've never heard anyone complain about the way Regionals is set up. It works for our region. I think it is also nice that there isn't a huge group of girls that have to miss school, at least 1 or 2 days (if you included travel time and possibly competing on Friday). For L10, there is no one competing on Friday, which is nice for those who will definitely have to miss school if they make Nationals.

It does stink to have to wait the extra week for L10, but for me personally this year, I think the extra week is actually allowing my dd to compete (having come back from an injury), I don't know how it would of went if she had to go last weekend. So, for personal reasons, I say YAY Region 7 for doing Regionals the way you do!!

 

[gymmomtoo]

If Region 7 isn't complaining about regionals being separate weekends for them, then what do the rest of us care? Does it really affect anyone else?

 

[wandrewsjr]

I don't think we should try to equalize the numbers every year, or try to make the qualification system completely fair and balanced. But couldn't we re-evaluate the Regions say, every 25 or 30 years, to account for population growth and shift!? Do something like moving Norcal from 1 to 2, Colorado or Kansas from 3 to 4 and New Jersey from 7 to 6(all these states border on the Region they would move to). I don't know exact numbers, so not sure if these specific examples would help, but something similar to reflect how the population in the US has shifted in the last few decades would as least make things more balanced.

 

[coachmolly]

If Region 7 isn't complaining about regionals being separate weekends for them, then what do the rest of us care? Does it really affect anyone else?

I don't think anyone was complaining. I live in Region 7 but have no level 9/10 athletes, I was just curious why Region 7 opted to do things the way they do because they are the only Region in the country that has 3 separate regional meets for levels 8-10 and it seems odd, as I have a hard time believing Region 7 is that much larger than some others in terms of numbers. I'm sure it does make for a meet that runs a bit more smoothly with less sessions/athletes per session. It just seems odd to me to have coaches traveling to 3 different places 3 weekends in a row, but if that's what works for them, great! I was just curious if anyone had any insight into some unique reasoning behind it if there was any (brings in more money for the region, judge shortage, enables more gyms to host, etc.), not trying to say it was wrong.

As far as the Regions go, there's always going to be someone that ends up losing out. It's that way among regions, but also that way within regions. Just like there are the big number regions with tons of great athletes, there are also states within those regions who are not gym oriented states that get to Regionals and have to keep up with the power states to qualify. It's not fair to girls in Kentucky who have to compete against the powerhouse Region 5 teams, the girls from Utah who compete against the Region 1 gyms, or girls from Wyoming who compete against Texans (that's not to say there aren't great gyms and athletes in each of those states, there are just less of them and typically less numbers and gyms with high level programs). There is just no reasonable way to make it fair on all levels, so you've got to give credit to USAG for coming up with a system that even attempts to balance some of that out.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

I don't think we should try to equalize the numbers every year, or try to make the qualification system completely fair and balanced. But couldn't we re-evaluate the Regions say, every 25 or 30 years, to account for population growth and shift!? Do something like moving Norcal from 1 to 2, Colorado or Kansas from 3 to 4 and New Jersey from 7 to 6(all these states border on the Region they would move to). I don't know exact numbers, so not sure if these specific examples would help, but something similar to reflect how the population in the US has shifted in the last few decades would as least make things more balanced.

this has always been a point of contention with all the states. if you move any state to another region you will now force those states to attend functions that might have been in a reasonable distance of their region and then they will have to go twice as far to travel.

example, years ago there was talk of moving Illinois over to region 4 to balance the numbers that you are speaking about. Illinois has huge numbers. had they followed thru, Illnois coaches and athletes might have to travel to North Dakota and South Dakota and the far reaches of Missouri and Minnesota.

that would have been a hardship. without spending the time to figure out the moving of other states to balance numbers, i'm certain somebody would get burned bad if they got moved in to another region. it's just the way it is.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

I don't think anyone was complaining. I live in Region 7 but have no level 9/10 athletes, I was just curious why Region 7 opted to do things the way they do because they are the only Region in the country that has 3 separate regional meets for levels 8-10 and it seems odd, as I have a hard time believing Region 7 is that much larger than some others in terms of numbers. I'm sure it does make for a meet that runs a bit more smoothly with less sessions/athletes per session. It just seems odd to me to have coaches traveling to 3 different places 3 weekends in a row, but if that's what works for them, great! I was just curious if anyone had any insight into some unique reasoning behind it if there was any (brings in more money for the region, judge shortage, enables more gyms to host, etc.), not trying to say it was wrong.

As far as the Regions go, there's always going to be someone that ends up losing out. It's that way among regions, but also that way within regions. Just like there are the big number regions with tons of great athletes, there are also states within those regions who are not gym oriented states that get to Regionals and have to keep up with the power states to qualify. It's not fair to girls in Kentucky who have to compete against the powerhouse Region 5 teams, the girls from Utah who compete against the Region 1 gyms, or girls from Wyoming who compete against Texans (that's not to say there aren't great gyms and athletes in each of those states, there are just less of them and typically less numbers and gyms with high level programs). There is just no reasonable way to make it fair on all levels, so you've got to give credit to USAG for coming up with a system that even attempts to balance some of that out.

these decisions are made by state boards. every state has always had separate or all together level meets depending on their numbers.

 

[wandrewsjr]

this has always been a point of contention with all the states. if you move any state to another region you will now force those states to attend functions that might have been in a reasonable distance of their region and then they will have to go twice as far to travel.

example, years ago there was talk of moving Illinois over to region 4 to balance the numbers that you are speaking about. Illinois has huge numbers. had they followed thru, Illnois coaches and athletes might have to travel to North Dakota and South Dakota and the far reaches of Missouri and Minnesota.

that would have been a hardship. without spending the time to figure out the moving of other states to balance numbers, i'm certain somebody would get burned bad if they got moved in to another region. it's just the way it is.

Yep, this potential of different travel distance, and "Region 1 pride" , seem to be the 2 major discussion points in the proposal to move Norcal to Region 2. But long travel distance is already an issue in the current alignment for some. Clubs from Cheyenne currently might have to go to New Orleans. Anyone in Region 2 know if Regionals is EVER held in Alaska or Hawaii?

 

[htimcj]

Yep, this potential of different travel distance, and "Region 1 pride" , seem to be the 2 major discussion points in the proposal to move Norcal to Region 2. But long travel distance is already an issue in the current alignment for some. Clubs from Cheyenne currently might have to go to New Orleans. Anyone in Region 2 know if Regionals is EVER held in Alaska or Hawaii?

Not recently but sometimes we wish it would go to Hawaii when it is still snowing here in APRIL

 

[txgymfan]

In theory, it makes sense to reevaluate the regions every 10 years or so, however,I think the pride issue is big for some. Many people are resistant to change and I would guess that would play a large part as well.

 

[MeetDirector]

Minor correction to wandrewsjr -

Louisiana is not in Region 3, even though the rules and policies have a map showing them in Region 3. Louisiana is in Region 8. This is confirmed by Louisiana not being at the recently completed Region 3 Lvl 9/10 Regionals in Kansas. So, no travel to New Orleans for us.

 

[wandrewsjr]

Minor correction to wandrewsjr -

Louisiana is not in Region 3, even though the rules and policies have a map showing them in Region 3. Louisiana is in Region 8. This is confirmed by Louisiana not being at the recently completed Region 3 Lvl 9/10 Regionals in Kansas. So, no travel to New Orleans for us.

Got it. So furthest you would have to go is probably Little Rock, Arkansas?

 

[Deleted member D3987]

Yep, this potential of different travel distance, and "Region 1 pride" , seem to be the 2 major discussion points in the proposal to move Norcal to Region 2. But long travel distance is already an issue in the current alignment for some. Clubs from Cheyenne currently might have to go to New Orleans. Anyone in Region 2 know if Regionals is EVER held in Alaska or Hawaii?

look at poor Joe Rapp. he's screwed BIG TIME. and every year. he owns Hawaiin Island Twisters. EVERYTHING he has to do is on the "mainland".

and of course any of us would love for nationals to be held there...

 

[wandrewsjr]

look at poor Joe Rapp. he's screwed BIG TIME. and every year. he owns Hawaiin Island Twisters. EVERYTHING he has to do is on the "mainland".

and of course any of us would love for nationals to be held there...

That was the running joke at the first meeting where moving Regions was brought up - "Sure, we'll agree to move...if HITS hosts every Regionals!"

 

[DND]

this has always been a point of contention with all the states. if you move any state to another region you will now force those states to attend functions that might have been in a reasonable distance of their region and then they will have to go twice as far to travel.

example, years ago there was talk of moving Illinois over to region 4 to balance the numbers that you are speaking about. Illinois has huge numbers. had they followed thru, Illnois coaches and athletes might have to travel to North Dakota and South Dakota and the far reaches of Missouri and Minnesota.

that would have been a hardship. without spending the time to figure out the moving of other states to balance numbers, i'm certain somebody would get burned bad if they got moved in to another region. it's just the way it is.

It would have been alot colder and not great on travel deals either...up in our neck of the woods!

 

[wandrewsjr]

look at poor Joe Rapp. he's screwed BIG TIME. and every year. he owns Hawaiin Island Twisters. EVERYTHING he has to do is on the "mainland".

and of course any of us would love for nationals to be held there...

Ok Dunno, I have tried my best, but just can't seem to muster up much sympathy for the guy that owns a gym and lives....IN HAWAII! I think I'll reserve my remote location/travel distance sympathy for the clubs in Alaska.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

bwahahahahahahahahaha^^