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

DON'T LURK... Join The Discussion!

Members see FEWER ads

There is of course no perfect solution that will benefit every gymnast in every state, or every parent who has to make travel plans.

The mapping exercise example is a case to show that one part of the issue - unbalanced number of gymnasts (particularly National-eligible L9/10 competitors per Region) - CAN be addressed by redrawing the regions. That part IS possible, and not horribly difficult, and would absolutely create a better balance than we have today.

Ultimately, the solution lies in what "we" want Nationals to "represent" philosophically speaking. Do we want it to be...

A) The place where the Top US Athletes are represented regardless of Region/State? True "Best of the Best"?
- This puts primary emphasis on the individual vs. a more 'Olympic' style competition between Regions.
- Best solution: Larger, balanced regions with a mix of strong and weak states in each + percentage allotment system
- Outcome: Only superstars from underserved States will make it, as each big Region will have multiple strong states. "Good" athletes from underserved states will mostly get squeezed out by the large talent pool of the large and mega-states in large Regional competitions. Many more of the talented, well-prepared large-state athletes will make it to Nationals than they do today. Far fewer of today's 'weak' region participants will get the opportunity.
- Summary: best for Large Power States & gyms; worst for small, underserved States

B) The place where each Region's Top Athletes come in a competitive Region vs. Region competition that showcases each Region's most deserving talent?
- This puts primary emphasis on balancing the Regions, competitively-speaking.
- Best solution: Same or smaller-size regions as we have today, redrawn to balance the talent pool (e.g., numbers of high-performing L9/10s). No allotment. Simply the top X number from each region to give each region equal representation.
- Outcome: Underserved states will continue to have difficulty qualifying athletes, but the underserved States in different regions will share this burden more equally (as opposed to some being benefitted by being in a 'weaker' region as it is now, while others compete against Texas...). Because each region will have strong 'anchor' states, the competition between regions will be more equitable and exciting.
- Summary: Worse for underserved states that today enjoy the advantage of being in a 'weaker' region (easier to qualify). Better for underserved States who are in a Region with a power state. Slightly better for "power" states/gyms as they will be more equally distributed across regions, so more "Top" talent will qualify overall (vs today's weaker regions).

C) The place where athletes are celebrated for their accomplishments, in the most 'representative' manner with consideration given to State size and opportunity?
- Effort is made to have adequate representation from underserved gymnastics communities (States) in the spirit of promoting equitable opportunity.
- Best solution: Under-represented States comprise their own Region(s) to maximize the representation from these States and ensure at least a minimum number of athletes are present from the 'non-power' gymnastics areas of the country.
- Outcome: Ideal for smaller, 'weaker' States, as even with their more limited resources, can still inspire girls to an achievable goal of representing their Region at Nationals and have their chance to shine. Power States will have a few more girls left out, even though head-to-head they would likely outperform at least some of the weaker state athletes (not all of course). Medium-power states and those on the 'borderline' of being 'small' (but not quite small enough) will probably be least happy with this model.

So what is most important?

DON'T LURK... Join The Discussion!

Members see FEWER ads

Gymnaverse :: Recent Activity

College Gym News