Parents L10 gymnast (The Reality Of College Gymnastics)

[Deleted member 26368]

There are a couple factors at play here. Title IX being one of them, so universities are very cognizant of the number of women and men's programs they have available. But the overriding driver is cost, at the D1 level. Scholarships cost a lot of money, then the coaching staff, then the travel and the sport is a non-revenue generating sport. So if you are going to start a program, you need to either be willing to cut some funding from an existing program(s) or have some new revenue streams coming in (TV contracts). That's why I think any new D1 programs are going to come from P5 schools because they will have the extra money from all the TV contracts to support a program. But they will think long and hard that it will not affect the cash cow football program. Honestly, there really is no reason why schools like Texas AM or Texas, Tennesse, Vanderbilt, South Carolina or any SEC school doesn't have one. But every $ they put in a gymnastics program takes a $ from the football program, sooooo

Heck, that makes it even more odd that UGA is the only collegiate gymnastics program here - it is 1000% a football school. I'm not a GA native and don't know much about the history of the program, but it existed before Kupets (the most notable UGA gymnast I'm aware of).

Sorry for the derailment!

 

[gym_dad32608]

Heck, that makes it even more odd that UGA is the only collegiate gymnastics program here - it is 1000% a football school. I'm not a GA native and don't know much about the history of the program, but it existed before Kupets (the most notable UGA gymnast I'm aware of).

Sorry for the derailment!

Right, Georgia was one of the early entrants their program has been around awhile, plus Georgia is in the SEC. Only the SEC and Big Ten pull in massive tv $ from their football programs that can underwrite a new gymnastics program. The only other large D1 school in the state is Ga Tech and they are in the ACC.

 

[gymgal]

There are still a lot of girls that are competing at D1 schools that never trained elite. Are they at Oklahoma or Florida or whatever.. probably not.

Even on OK, FL and the other big ones there are gymnasts who did go elite.

My thoughts on this topic have changed since my DD started in the sport 10+ years ago. Her first year competing was as Xcel Silver and the unfairness was because some gyms used Xcel as prep for JO. The next year she moved to L4 and the unfairness was some gyms make kids repeat L4 till they score 38 so they can WIN states. The year after she moved to L5 and by then the unfairness was some gyms have kids compete L5 but the kids already have big skills for optionals and they are just competing L5 to WIN. At the time, I sort of bought into it. I guess people take some degree of comfort that their kid, under different circumstances, could have better had their been a level playing field? I dunno.

This was me as well in the lower levels. It was so frustrating. Around L8 I finally "got" it and started changing my thinking. Seeing that every choice had pros/cons.

--------------------------------------

Also, in regards to having more gymnastics teams. I am not sure about why D1's don't start them but I know one major factor for D2/3 is that the current programs are very regionally based and because of the nature of D2 especially, these teams do not travel very far in the regular season. So for more programs, it would need to be either more colleges in these 2 areas or a group of colleges in another region. Unfortunately, I am doubtful that will happen

 

[maz-y]

As far as elites dropping back down to L10...it's a small number. Being elite is hard and expensive...they shouldn't be faulted for trying. And if they were to compete in their own special group of L10, that really won't accomplish much either because then you just have a select group of L10s that will get all the attention, potentially taking away from the 'regular' group.

If the sole objective of participating in the sport was to get noticed by college programs and to get on a college team, then having a separate level for former elites who want to drop back would be unnecessary. However, if providing athletes with opportunities to compete against similarly skilled athletes is an objective, then creating a separate post-elite level for the athletes dropping back from elite makes sense.
99% of “regular” level 10s are not similarly skilled to former elites.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

I agree with what you are saying @gym_dad32608. Selfishly, I wish that the “average” level 10s didn’t have to compete with the ones training elite, but I don’t think it should be any other way. It’s a competitive sport, period.

There are thousands of track, football, baseball, soccer, lacrosse, volleyball, and basketball players who are good players. Many are superstars at their HS. And they never play a college sport. Never make it to the NBA, NFL, MLB or the Olympics.

 

[kecks]

To a European this whole conversation sounds kind of disturbing. All of this hazzle because getting your kid a decent education means lots and lots and mor dollars or being great at a sport to be able to attend a college. In Europe college is more or less free, problem solved.

 

[gym_dad32608]

If the sole objective of participating in the sport was to get noticed by college programs and to get on a college team, then having a separate level for former elites who want to drop back would be unnecessary. However, if providing athletes with opportunities to compete against similarly skilled athletes is an objective, then creating a separate post-elite level for the athletes dropping back from elite makes sense.
99% of “regular” level 10s are not similarly skilled to former elites.

First of all, as JBS has pointed out, I think you need to clearly define elites here, because it can get blurry, there are a lot of girls who train elite but never qualify elite, there are also a similar number who may qualify but still never compete and a number that compete but are never on the national team, so which group are you going to single out?
Second, the goal of the DP program is NOT to provide opportunities to compete against similarly skilled athletes. The goal of the DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM is to develop the best athletes by creating a feeder system to elite. Rember USAG exists to identify athletes to represent the USA in competition (at least in theory lol). So from that standpoint, its about pitting a group of athletes that can complete certain skill requirements and seeing who the best ones are.

 

[gym_dad32608]

To a European this whole conversation sounds kind of disturbing. All of this hazzle because getting your kid a decent education means lots and lots and mor dollars or being great at a sport to be able to attend a college. In Europe college is more or less free, problem solved.

I think you're missing the point, its not about free education. It is more of a philosophical discussion about having more opportunities for more gymnasts and the challenges of getting noticed. All these girls and families make large commitments and work so hard, obtaining a college scholarship to continue competing in something they love so much is a form of recognition. Think about your European education system, yes education is free, but if I am not mistaken, one cannot just go to the most prestigious universities, you have to be selected and have certain achievements. Perhaps a misplaced analogy would be a student that can't get access to those universities because they are coming from a rural unrecognized low profile education system.

 

[kecks]

I think you're missing the point, its not about free education. It is more of a philosophical discussion about having more opportunities for more gymnasts and the challenges of getting noticed. All these girls and families make large commitments and work so hard, obtaining a college scholarship to continue competing in something they love so much is a form of recognition. Think about your European education system, yes education is free, but if I am not mistaken, one cannot just go to the most prestigious universities, you have to be selected and have certain achievements. Perhaps a misplaced analogy would be a student that can't get access to those universities because they are coming from a rural unrecognized low profile education system.

I think you have to step a little further back to see what is going on here. Who should pay for people's education - everyone or the individual getting the eductaion? Europe's answer is pretty clear. It looks bizarr from the outside to see grown intelligent people discuss the question, who gets to be an "student athlete" not to qualify for national teams (this is what student athletes are in Germany, people in national elite squads trying to balance school and elite sports) but to get a college education in the first place.

Selecting students into the very best free programs according to their academic performance level is just selection of the best suited. And I ashure you that education f.e. in Bavaria is pretty much the same everywhere. It does not matter much if you are smarte in the smallest town near the eastern border or in Munich. Schools will always have very well trained teachers, same class size, same lessons, more or less the same tests everywhere, selecting due to academic performance starting age 10. No need to pay.

 

[gym_dad32608]

I think you have to step a little further back to see what is going on here. Who should pay for people's education - everyone or the individual getting the eductaion? Europe's answer is pretty clear. It looks bizarr from the outside to see grown intelligent people discuss the question, who gets to be an "student athlete" not to qualify for national teams (this is what student athletes are in Germany, people in national elite squads trying to balance school and elite sports) but to get a college education in the first place.

Selecting students into the very best free programs according to their academic performance level is just selection of the best suited. And I ashure you that education f.e. in Bavaria is pretty much the same everywhere. It does not matter much if you are smarte in the smallest town near the eastern border or in Munich. Schools will always have very well trained teachers, same class size, same lessons, more or less the same tests everywhere, selecting due to academic performance starting age 10. No need to pay.

Well comrade, you have obtained a socialist utopia when it comes to education in Germany. Just kidding, and I do envy the European education system, but I am not sure I am completely following your line and it is somewhat lost in translation. I assure you, this has little to do about a who pays for education.

 

[kecks]

You can not see that the whole problem starts with the facts that everyone seem's to be okay or even happy with the (to us insane) idea, that education is not a public service but a service you pay for? Doing sports to get into a college? This is bizarre, disturbing and in a strange way kind of fascinating.

 

[cmg]

There are a couple factors at play here. Title IX being one of them, so universities are very cognizant of the number of women and men's programs they have available. But the overriding driver is cost, at the D1 level. Scholarships cost a lot of money, then the coaching staff, then the travel and the sport is a non-revenue generating sport. So if you are going to start a program, you need to either be willing to cut some funding from an existing program(s) or have some new revenue streams coming in (TV contracts). That's why I think any new D1 programs are going to come from P5 schools because they will have the extra money from all the TV contracts to support a program. But they will think long and hard that it will not affect the cash cow football program. Honestly, there really is no reason why schools like Texas AM or Texas, Tennesse, Vanderbilt, South Carolina or any SEC school doesn't have one. But every $ they put in a gymnastics program takes a $ from the football program, sooooo

This is the bottom line reality. Also perhaps liability? I know all upper level athletes get injuries, but gymnastics might have the potential for more serious injuries.

And yes, I am not trying to punish anyone from competing D1. The elites that drop down no doubt help programs bring in fans and money and national attention, which is good for the sport overall. But considering it is the average athletes that help pay for USA gymnastics then I think USA gymnastics could help provide opportunities beyond high school for many of their athletes that paid how many years of dues? Not that $80 a year or what ever it is now a lot of money, but I would think dues are a base revenue stream for USA gymnastics. And given what they have done concerning all the abuse issues going on then they could do something positive. Perhaps advising colleges on how to start a program, safety concerns, insurance, etc.

Again, the elites in some ways have brought a lot of attention to college gymnastics but years ago they were not going to college after they finished the Olympics or international competitions. Years ago there probably were more programs especially for men. So yes I wish there were more opportunities for gymnasts, but the reality is there is not enough programs due to financial constraints. Quite frankly all D1 college sports have turned into professional sports now that the NIL rules have been approved. In most sports the D2's and D3's then provide ample opportunities, but not the case for gymnastics. So not trying to suggest elites be banned from going to college but just wishing more opportunities existed for others.

 

[gym_dad32608]

I think you are off on this interpretation and perhaps its due to misunderstanding cultural differences. But you are also talking about a topic wayyyy beyond gymnastics and a broader societal discussion.

 

[ReluctantGymMom]

Well comrade, you have obtained a socialist utopia when it comes to education in Germany. Just kidding, and I do envy the European education system, but I am not sure I am completely following your line and it is somewhat lost in translation. I assure you, this has little to do about a who pays for education.

Families make such extreme sacrifices for their kids gymnastics (and other sports) with the hopes of getting a scholarship, that the children start to feel guilty and like they HAVE to get that scholarship. So much money is burned in the process of getting to be a competitive level 10 or elite that would just outright pay for college.

When you don’t have the looming “threat” of needing to get a scholarship, you have people who do the sport because they love it, but feel more free to leave because there isn’t an end objective attached to it. They know they’re going to college for free, so they don’t need to sacrifice middle school and high school, home schooling, driving many hours.

The ones that do elite are doing it for the explicit purpose of doing elite, which they are more free to continue instead of having to choose between college and elite.

There are many benefits for the kids in terms of not having to worry about scholarships.

The main issue with competitive gymnastics in Europe is how they select kids for levels I think - it’s a lot more stringent than the US and there is not flexibility for older kids that may catch up quickly in levels.

 

[JBS]

the goal of the DP program is NOT to provide opportunities to compete against similarly skilled athletes. The goal of the DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM is to develop the best athletes by creating a feeder system to elite.

Great conversation… not sure I would agree with this though. The DP program actually does provide the opportunity to compete against similarly skilled athletes.

When we were involved in the camp structure… the National Staff made it very clear that the JO / DP program absolutely does not lead to the Elite system in their opinion. They urged everyone there to stay completely out of that system for anyone that would be going towards the elite program.

The DP program has many levels so you can compete against similarly skilled athletes. The elite program has different age groups that all basically use the same rules. Hopes young… Hopes old… Junior elite… Elite. They all basically build on the same rules at different ages.

The problem is that Level 10 is an “unlimited” level… so that is what you get.

With the new DP Level 9 rules… I’ll go out on a limb and say about 50% of the current Level 10’s could easily be served well at Level 9. Doesn’t fix the problem that some are stating… it just shows things more clearly. There are definitely 2 grades of Level 10’s currently in Level 10. Take the bottom 50% back to Level 9 and Level 10 would really have no issues.

 

[LJL07]

This is the bottom line reality. Also perhaps liability? I know all upper level athletes get injuries, but gymnastics might have the potential for more serious injuries.

And yes, I am not trying to punish anyone from competing D1. The elites that drop down no doubt help programs bring in fans and money and national attention, which is good for the sport overall. But considering it is the average athletes that help pay for USA gymnastics then I think USA gymnastics could help provide opportunities beyond high school for many of their athletes that paid how many years of dues? Not that $80 a year or what ever it is now a lot of money, but I would think dues are a base revenue stream for USA gymnastics. And given what they have done concerning all the abuse issues going on then they could do something positive. Perhaps advising colleges on how to start a program, safety concerns, insurance, etc.

Again, the elites in some ways have brought a lot of attention to college gymnastics but years ago they were not going to college after they finished the Olympics or international competitions. Years ago there probably were more programs especially for men. So yes I wish there were more opportunities for gymnasts, but the reality is there is not enough programs due to financial constraints. Quite frankly all D1 college sports have turned into professional sports now that the NIL rules have been approved. In most sports the D2's and D3's then provide ample opportunities, but not the case for gymnastics. So not trying to suggest elites be banned from going to college but just wishing more opportunities existed for others.

Right. I'm struggling to understand how anyone could disagree with this regardless of whether or not his/her child is on the elite path. I think maybe Aussie Coach also mentioned that gymnastics is one of the only sports where the athletes go "pro" (elite) prior to graduating high school. So it is just different from pretty much all of the other sports.

Re: Nationals, what skin is it off of anyone's teeth if more girls are able to qualify? Or heck, how about even regionals? It's more money for USAG. The better trained and experienced former elites will probably still be top of the podium, but I don't see why more girls couldn't go. It really is getting harder and harder to qualify. Our region for instance is very competitive, so we have a higher cut off to attend regionals for 9/10. This kind of stinks for our girls in our state and the state bordering ours.

 

[LJL07]

Great conversation… not sure I would agree with this though. The DP program actually does provide the opportunity to compete again similarly skilled athletes.

When we were involved in the camp structure… the National Staff made it very clear that the JO / DP program absolutely does not lead to the Elite system in their opinion. They urged everyone there to stay completely out of that system for anyone that would be going towards the elite program.

The DP program has many levels so you can compete against similarly skilled athletes. The elite program has different age groups that all basically use the same rules. Hopes young… Hopes old… Junior elite… Elite. They all basically build on the same rules at different ages.

The problem is that Level 10 is an “unlimited” level… so that is what you get.

With the new DP Level 9 rules… I’ll go out on a limb and say about 50% of the current Level 10’s could easily be served well at Level 9. Doesn’t fix the problem that some are stating… it just shows things more clearly. There are definitely 2 grades of Level 10’s currently in Level 10. Take the bottom 50% back to Level 9 and Level 10 would really have no issues.

Yes. Our in-state 10s are really more like level 9. Is there really no better way to streamline all of this?

And I too thought DP was a separate stream from elite which is why it feels frustrating for my level 8 daughter to be competing against HOPES athletes.

 

[ReluctantGymMom]

Right. I'm struggling to understand how anyone could disagree with this regardless of whether or not his/her child is on the elite path. I think maybe Aussie Coach also mentioned that gymnastics is one of the only sports where the athletes go "pro" (elite) prior to graduating high school. So it is just different from pretty much all of the other sports.

Re: Nationals, what skin is it off of anyone's teeth if more girls are able to qualify? Or heck, how about even regionals? It's more money for USAG. The better trained and experienced former elites will probably still be top of the podium, but I don't see why more girls couldn't go. It really is getting harder and harder to qualify. Our region for instance is very competitive, so we have a higher cut off to attend regionals for 9/10. This kind of stinks for our girls in our state and the state bordering ours.

On the topic of cut offs for regionals - I'm confused why each region has vastly different rules. Our state goes by %, so the regional qualifiers were people who scored 37.5 and up - but another region took everyone who scored over a flat 34. Those 2 scores aren't even close to each other, my kid fell on -every- single event at states (worst meet of her life) and scored a high 34, in another region...she would have gone to regionals? Just strange, disparate rules that aren't unified across the board.

 

[LJL07]

On the topic of cut offs for regionals - I'm confused why each region has vastly different rules. Our state goes by %, so the regional qualifiers were people who scored 37.5 and up - but another region took everyone who scored over a flat 34. Those 2 scores aren't even close to each other, my kid fell on -every- single event at states (worst meet of her life) and scored a high 34, in another region...she would have gone to regionals? Just strange, disparate rules that aren't unified across the board.

Yes, I agree. Again, this is my issue with all of this. Different "rules" everywhere. So yes, in some regions, I believe it is just a cut off of 34 but higher in some regions. And then in heavily populated regions, there is a %age. There were literally 0 girls scoring 37s in our state in level 9 and maybe 1 or 2 multiyear level 10s at most who scored at a 37, but I know there are plenty of states elsewhere with plenty of 37s. This is for level 9/10. But for level 6/7/8, it was top 8 for the state team and then a percentage based off of number of gymnasts in each state.

 

[gym_dad32608]

Great conversation… not sure I would agree with this though. The DP program actually does provide the opportunity to compete again similarly skilled athletes.

When we were involved in the camp structure… the National Staff made it very clear that the JO / DP program absolutely does not lead to the Elite system in their opinion. They urged everyone there to stay completely out of that system for anyone that would be going towards the elite program.

The DP program has many levels so you can compete against similarly skilled athletes. The elite program has different age groups that all basically use the same rules. Hopes young… Hopes old… Junior elite… Elite. They all basically build on the same rules at different ages.

The problem is that Level 10 is an “unlimited” level… so that is what you get.

With the new DP Level 9 rules… I’ll go out on a limb and say about 50% of the current Level 10’s could easily be served well at Level 9. Doesn’t fix the problem that some are stating… it just shows things more clearly. There are definitely 2 grades of Level 10’s currently in Level 10. Take the bottom 50% back to Level 9 and Level 10 would really have no issues.

Shades of difference here, I think there is intent, and then what is actual in practice. I could argue that every girl that has entered elite started in the DP. They may not have gotten to L10, but I am sure they started at some point in the DP. So how am I wrong? But in practice no one stays in DP to hop in to do elite. Jade Carey kinda sorta did this? But definitely the exception.

I agree with you the problem is L10 is an unlimited level. So you get the situation that many here are complaining/bemoaning etc about. I also agree with the 50% of L10's would be better served by doing L9. So many 10's don't even have 10 SV routines but are convinced they have to do L10. So maybe part of the solution is creating more stringent criteria to be a L10? But then we will hear the complaints about that.

At the end of the day, as some have mentioned, you cant get away from competition, one can slice it up all they want but someone is still going to be left out.