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

[Sasha]

Ok, Y'all, have some fun tearing this apart and seeing if you can do better

Pretty much whoever competes with Texas is going to complain - there are no bordering states with strong numbers. So what would you do?

(Based on numbers posted above mining State Championships representing L10's scoring 34+)

 

[tomtnt]

nice work - sad thing is nothing will likely change and we'll have this same conversation next year!

 

[gymbeam]

Oh, heck yes. Being in NC, I LOVE this reconfiguration. Moves us into a much smaller travel territory.
Would be dreamy!
Where would you propose the W/E divide be in this configuration for Level 9? (Just for shiggles.)

 

[MeetDirector]

How about splitting Texas like they did California? Their numbers are so huge they dominate any region. The problem is, where do you draw the line in Texas - north/south or east/west? Texas already divides themselves into 7 districts, so maybe there would be a way to split the state based on that.

 

[GymDad9.9]

Sasha, Great Effort!

Couple of thoughts.....it's pretty clear that Region 2 is a hard one to get the numbers up. I would consider adding the Dakotas (and Alaska?) to them as well. Perhaps send Kansas and Nebraska to Region 4 to be more geographically consistent? Pennsylvania seems misplaced in Region 6. Perhaps swap them to Region 7 and New Jersey and Connecticut to Region 6? Region 8 is now light in numbers but future population growth could diminish that somewhat although slotting Tennessee back into Region 8 cures that, but that then underweights Region 5.

 

[bogwoppit]

In Quebec our four divisions are redrawn yearly based on numbers the previous year. They literally do it club by club. A much smaller area, but it really is not that big of a job.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

Ok, Y'all, have some fun tearing this apart and seeing if you can do better

Pretty much whoever competes with Texas is going to complain - there are no bordering states with strong numbers. So what would you do?

(Based on numbers posted above mining State Championships representing L10's scoring 34+)

View attachment 6663 View attachment 6667

That's actually pretty darn awesome ! It allowed for growth in the expanding regions as well. Create some type of petition and I will help getting it into
Multiple hands . Excellent work!

 

[Deleted member 14190]

The hard part is for whatever reason (because it's really silly) coaches see winning with their region at nationals as more important. For me the kids are far more important than the imaginary trophy my region gets... but that really will be objections ...

 

[gymbeam]

That's actually pretty darn awesome ! It allowed for growth in the expanding regions as well. Create some type of petition and I will help getting it into
Multiple hands . Excellent work!

Would be super if someone would draft up something. I'd sign the line!

 

[strawberries]

Fabulous visuals, Sasha! Thank you!

I vote Texas is their own region--the independence will be right up their alley, and they will rise to the challenge of being given the smallest district.

OR (since we're dreaming)....

Overhaul everything and synchronize boys (currently has 9 regions) and girls, making 12 regions total. 12 splits nicely into 4 girls' events and 6 boys' 6 events.

Texas could still be its own region, but be the biggest (149 vs. other regions at 127). Independent AND biggest is really up Texas' alley.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

Fabulous visuals, Sasha! Thank you!

I vote Texas is their own region--the independence will be right up their alley, and they will rise to the challenge of being given the smallest district.

OR (since we're dreaming)....

Overhaul everything and synchronize boys (currently has 9 regions) and girls, making 12 regions total. 12 splits nicely into 4 girls' events and 6 boys' 6 events.

Texas could still be its own region, but be the biggest (149 vs. other regions at 127). Independent AND biggest is really up Texas' alley.

Or they can just cut the country in half like in level 9.

 

[Sasha]

The hard part is for whatever reason (because it's really silly) coaches see winning with their region at nationals as more important. For me the kids are far more important than the imaginary trophy my region gets... but that really will be objections ...

Interesting perspective, thank you. Well, this configuration (or similar with some tweaks) puts nice anchor states in each region - even the 'light' region 2 has Arizona and Colorado, which have some high caliber clubs to anchor the region. Would definitely seem to make it more competitive.

 

[ladybird]

Even though I come from a weak region, and would seem counterintuitive to our situation, I would sign whatever petition was drafted. We would then need to encourage more people like me to do this for obvious reasons.

 

[bookworm]

Or they can just cut the country in half like in level 9.

It's funny you say this because when my oldest competed at 9 Easterns back in the day, there wasn't a set number that qualified per age group but a percentage of the competitors. That system seemed fine and I believe you had to be in the top 20-22% of your age group and there were around 400 competitors at the meet in Tampa. Fast forward a few years , and USAG changed it to 6 per age group (with a minimum score to advance) ...my point is, USAG had a percentage system in place that seemed to work and they changed it to hard numbers per age group....for what reason? I don't know if they will even think that the numbers are an issue because this is the system that THEY created, and must have wanted.

 

[Sasha]

Sasha, Great Effort!

Couple of thoughts.....it's pretty clear that Region 2 is a hard one to get the numbers up. I would consider adding the Dakotas (and Alaska?) to them as well. Perhaps send Kansas and Nebraska to Region 4 to be more geographically consistent? Pennsylvania seems misplaced in Region 6. Perhaps swap them to Region 7 and New Jersey and Connecticut to Region 6? Region 8 is now light in numbers but future population growth could diminish that somewhat although slotting Tennessee back into Region 8 cures that, but that then underweights Region 5.

Great thoughts, GymDad9.9 thanks for the thoughtwork!

I struggled with what to do with the Dakotas, too (I kept moving them back and forth). Ultimately, I went with balancing number of states per region and geographic area (as Region 2 is already hugest geographically for travel, and flights are $$$ with comparatively smaller cities in this region). Also Region 2 population is expanding as people leave some of the coastal regions. Some growth area there is perhaps ok. Maybe the Dakotans could choose

Kansas and Nebraska I also toyed with your same thoughts. The reason I put them in Region 3 is because 1) Region 4 numbers already big and 2) wanted more States with Texas region both for numbers, and just so we don't have the "Texas plus only a couple lonely tiny states" making up a region. If Texas isn't its own region (which I also thought of and could totally work), seems there should be a handful of other States in there so they have other people to compete agains (not just Texas)t. Just my reasoning. Lots of possibilities here, though. This is the hardest one to configure and make bordering states happy, imo as Texas is just so dominating.

I swapped Pennsylvania in and out several times, too! Your solution here could work equally well or better, I think.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

Interesting perspective, thank you. Well, this configuration (or similar with some tweaks) puts nice anchor states in each region - even the 'light' region 2 has Arizona and Colorado, which have some high caliber clubs to anchor the region. Would definitely seem to make it more competitive.

And Utah! actually Region 2 is pretty stacked! probably throw Nevada back in 1 and keep alaska hawaii in 2 would be (skill wise) better, because region 2 just became a real powerhouse.

 

[gymbeam]

Wait. Major problem, folks.
This new map would have me traveling to CT in the winter.
I rather prefer to travel South from NC in February so I withdraw my support.

 

[Natasha]

It's funny you say this because when my oldest competed at 9 Easterns back in the day, there wasn't a set number that qualified per age group but a percentage of the competitors. That system seemed fine and I believe you had to be in the top 20-22% of your age group and there were around 400 competitors at the meet in Tampa. Fast forward a few years , and USAG changed it to 6 per age group (with a minimum score to advance) ...my point is, USAG had a percentage system in place that seemed to work and they changed it to hard numbers per age group....for what reason? I don't know if they will even think that the numbers are an issue because this is the system that THEY created, and must have wanted.

I think they changed it to hard numbers because it allows for set preplanned sessions that fit nicely into a weekend.

 

[GymDad9.9]

Wait. Major problem, folks.
This new map would have me traveling to CT in the winter.
I rather prefer to travel South from NC in February so I withdraw my support.

In my scenario, you'd be driving to Pennsylvania, which is alot worse! Says someone who has been stuck in the dead of winter on a shutdown Interstate 80 in East-Central PA.

I feel your pain.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

Wait. Major problem, folks.
This new map would have me traveling to CT in the winter.
I rather prefer to travel South from NC in February so I withdraw my support.

No worries, we just put you into region 1. Hawaii will host regionals every year.