WAG Numbers of L9 and 10s moving from Regionals to Nationals.....something seems crazy!

[3rd_time_around]

I peeked at mso for L8-10 regionals (R1), which has competed day one of three days. Already there have been 29 scores over a 38, and one girl with a 37.825 who didn't qualify to nationals. That's gotta suck so bad. I don't know what the answer is, but how do you see the best of the best at nationals when it's not just the straight up best scorers?

I was actually surprised to see many gymnasts with 36s going to nationals this year. Many who scored 8s on events. That rarely happened in the past, just something I noticed today.

 

[duyetanh]

I suppose you could also say there are gymnasts in region 2 who wish they had access to the type of coaching and powerhouse gyms you see in region 1.

Yes, it definitely goes both ways, to be sure!

 

[lovofu]

I have read every comment and have a different perspective. Sophia is going on to Nationals with an 8.5 on bars and a bad fall on bars to boot. What the score doesn't show is the horrific fall (on top of the bar on her ribs) in warmup and her fight to do bars anyway. What the 37.2 doesn't show is she followed bars with her best beam routine of the season. What scores don't show is the size of the gym, the hours they train, the injuries, family situations. Nationals is a great leveler!!! Have faith!!

 

[bookworm]

Nationals is a great leveler!!! Have faith!!

That has been my point all along, Nationals IS a great leveler...all judged by the same panel, period.

 

[Sasha]

I like the boys' allotment system to nationals. Bigger regions get to send more athletes, equivalent to a percentage of the number of athletes in the level. And no minimum score to deal with (since scores could be variable/inflated/whatever across regions).

I say this even though I'm in a smaller region and have a boy (and a girl). I still think it is more fair.

And I don't see why Nationals has to be 'Like the Olympics', and in fact, it's not even like the Olympics now with the 'everyone sends the Top 7' format. Not every country gets to send gymnasts to the Olympics (though every Region sends gymnasts to Nationals). Countries still have to qualify a team, and only the Top X number of country teams make it. Then only the top X individual competitors fill the remaining slots (with a cap on number per country, as I understand it). So the big power countries (USA, China, Russia...) have a full team, while little Jamaica might send 1 athlete IF she qualifies as an individual. Obviously there are way more countries than there are Regions, but still, saying Nationals needs to be like the Olympics, even in spirit, is arguable.

 

[gymgal]

I was actually surprised to see many gymnasts with 36s going to nationals this year. Many who scored 8s on events. That rarely happened in the past, just something I noticed today.

I was at the region 8 meet today and I noticed this as well. And considerably less 38's. Looking back, there were only approximately 5 vs last year wither there were over 15. And no, they were not all from seniors who graduated last year. The meet is being held in a state that tends to judge harder but with judges from all states in the region, this shouldn't be a factor.

As for the general discussion of who goes to Nationals - What about making super teams, like many regions do for L8 (and lower in some regions). They could do more general divisions (jr/sr and maybe child if the smaller regions could field one) where the top 7 of each division are on the super team. No region would have difficulty fielding these teams (14-21 girls) so all regions would be equally represented, certainly with the best of the best in their region.

Then a national percentage could be used to allot the rest of the spots (500+), as individual competitors, using the same 2-3 age divisions to qualify (the regions can still have smaller age divisions but it would be in the context of ch, jr, sr - jr 1,2,3 and all the jrs would be competing for how ever many spots the jrs get) . Once the gymnasts are named for nationals, then the age groups can be made within the stated divisions. The super team girls would compete among the rest of the girls in their own age group and their scores would count for the super team as well as for their own personal medaling.

Certainly a different way of doing it but I don't think it would be significantly harder to organize it, other than figuring the numbers per region and doing the age groups once regionals is over.

 

[bookworm]

With all of the more pressing issues that USAG will be having to deal with in the near future (the whole Nassar scandal, Penny's departure, need for oversight so this never happens again), I'm thinking that "possibly looking at the system of qualifying gymnasts to JOs so it seems more fair to larger regions" isn't going to be on the list....

 

[Deleted member 18037]

I have read every comment and have a different perspective. Sophia is going on to Nationals with an 8.5 on bars and a bad fall on bars to boot. What the score doesn't show is the horrific fall (on top of the bar on her ribs) in warmup and her fight to do bars anyway. What the 37.2 doesn't show is she followed bars with her best beam routine of the season. What scores don't show is the size of the gym, the hours they train, the injuries, family situations. Nationals is a great leveler!!! Have faith!!

Earned her spot with her lowly score (said with extreme sarcasm).

Seriously hope she rocks it.

 

[chalkbowl]

Madison McPherson (Sr B, R8) has also qualified to JOs! If you go on the ChalkWarrior website now you will see several R1, R3, R5, R7, & R8 athletes filling the spots that were left open in Region 2.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

They just need to reconfigure the regions ... problem solved to the best of USAG ability. This should be done by calculating the number average level 10 at regionals over the past 3 years. It's inexcusable that several regions have over 240 level 10 on average and several regions have under 140 on average. NCAA and professional sports do this, not sure why we refuse to do it. But if everyone here on CB calls and sends emails to USAG and demands this they will bring it up for discussion . It's outrageous that one region has 70 10'a and another has over 300....

 

[wandrewsjr]

They just need to reconfigure the regions ... problem solved to the best of USAG ability. This should be done by calculating the number average level 10 at regionals over the past 3 years. It's inexcusable that several regions have over 240 level 10 on average and several regions have under 140 on average. NCAA and professional sports do this, not sure why we refuse to do it. But if everyone here on CB calls and sends emails to USAG and demands this they will bring it up for discussion . It's outrageous that one region has 70 10'a and another has over 300....

Yep. What is the purpose of having Regions, of having a Regional age group team competition as the framework for Nationals if one of the Regions is so small they can't field a full team in ANY age group?!

Nothing sacrosanct about the Regional boundaries, men and T&T already have different lines than women. And not asking for exact parity of size. Just revisit the boundaries every 30 years or so to account for major shifts in population.

 

[2G1B]

I would think the pool of eligible athletes would come from those regions who had done well in the past, as they would, in theory, have more kids than spots. One poster mentioned kids from regions 5 and 7 being named to fill in...and those are the regions I'd expect, along with probably region 1.

I noticed that a Region 8 girl is getting one of those spots too.

 

[tomtnt]

Moving norcal or Utah to region 2 would help a lot. But as someone previously noted, no one wants to go to the "weaker" region

They just need to reconfigure the regions ... problem solved to the best of USAG ability. This should be done by calculating the number average level 10 at regionals over the past 3 years. It's inexcusable that several regions have over 240 level 10 on average and several regions have under 140 on average. NCAA and professional sports do this, not sure why we refuse to do it. But if everyone here on CB calls and sends emails to USAG and demands this they will bring it up for discussion . It's outrageous that one region has 70 10'a and another has over 300....

 

[Deleted member 14190]

It shouldn't be up to what coaches want , it should be based on what is equally beneficial for all children. The solution is a total nationwide realignment. Region one is just one of 5 overloaded regions. The other three regions need to absorb two states each.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

I like the boys' allotment system to nationals. Bigger regions get to send more athletes, equivalent to a percentage of the number of athletes in the level. And no minimum score to deal with (since scores could be variable/inflated/whatever across regions).

I say this even though I'm in a smaller region and have a boy (and a girl). I still think it is more fair.

And I don't see why Nationals has to be 'Like the Olympics', and in fact, it's not even like the Olympics now with the 'everyone sends the Top 7' format. Not every country gets to send gymnasts to the Olympics (though every Region sends gymnasts to Nationals). Countries still have to qualify a team, and only the Top X number of country teams make it. Then only the top X individual competitors fill the remaining slots (with a cap on number per country, as I understand it). So the big power countries (USA, China, Russia...) have a full team, while little Jamaica might send 1 athlete IF she qualifies as an individual. Obviously there are way more countries than there are Regions, but still, saying Nationals needs to be like the Olympics, even in spirit, is arguable.View attachment 6651

College coaches .... making it to nationals is a big deal. I don't care what anyone says, they are all there and they all go after the top kids at nationals. In many regions a mistake eliminates you from qualifying. Kids get shut out with 37.9! Those kids don't jet to go and could very possibly have have the meet of their life and a different future because they are recruited. Nationals is a big deal.

 

[Sasha]

College coaches .... making it to nationals is a big deal. I don't care what anyone says, they are all there and they all go after the top kids at nationals. In many regions a mistake eliminates you from qualifying. Kids get shut out with 37.9! Those kids don't jet to go and could very possibly have have the meet of their life and a different future because they are recruited. Nationals is a big deal.

I agree. Sounds like you favor a geographic re-distribution of the region boundaries. Do you also favor an allotment system based on percentages like the men? Or perhaps you are saying re-drawing the boundaries would solve the problem alone?

Thanks for your insights!

 

[Deleted member 14190]

I agree. Sounds like you favor a geographic re-distribution of the region boundaries. Do you also favor an allotment system based on percentages like the men? Or perhaps you are saying re-drawing the boundaries would solve the problem alone?

Thanks for your insights!

Just redraw the boundaries. The idea of taking top scores nationwide does not work because of different judging.

 

[profmom]

The good thing about the men's system is that they do the allotments based on registrations for the state meets. No matter the size of your region, around the same percentage of boys registered for states in each age group go. The cutoff scores will vary from region to region, and there's still no way to account for being in a "tough" region, but it seems more fair to me overall.

 

[Sasha]

Just redraw the boundaries. The idea of taking top scores nationwide does not work because of different judging.

Right. I was referring to a percentage allotment not based on a specific score - as in, Top 10% (or whatever) of gymnasts.

So if your region has 200 L10's, you get to send the Top 20 from your regional meet. If your region has 150, you get to send the Top 15.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

Personally I think it would be better for the sport to shift boundaries over an allotment. For several reasons. The lesser regions will only benefit from it. As opposed to taking spots away