Parents Rant about the system (regionals age groups)

[gympoppop]

It seems to me that the most fair system would be for each region to take the top X gymnasts regardless of age to nationals. Age shouldn't matter so much when competing at such a high level and the best should go to nationals within each region. Younger ages will get their chance when they are older.

 

[GymnastMomX2]

It’s crazy how unfair it is, but I’m not sure what the solution would be. Maybe they could just take the top X scores from each region at regionals ignoring age groups? And then split into age groups once they know who is competing at Nationals?

 

[estamey21]

Hmmm. There is clearly no correct solution to this problem. My understanding is that age groups attempt to acknowledge (celebrate?) the stark reality that gymnastics progress is highly correlated with age. A gymnastics career is very short, and older kids are at a statistical disadvantage.

I think the goal of the JO program is to allow kids—regardless of age—to "rise the ranks" in their respective age groups. I see this as a fair policy, considering that there are other elite leagues that are more discriminating.

 

[Aussie_coach]

Frankly I wouldn't mind this, aside from it sounds like really long meets, if they are all competing together. The issue occurs when, from a particular meet, certain gymnasts are qualified to move to the next level of competition and the qualification is not based solely on score but on which particular region and age group you are in at that qualifying meet.


Reality - it is not going to change unless USAG decides to do away with the region aspect of Nationals, which I do not anticipate.

Yes, our competitions are longer but our awards presentations and much, much shorter.

I do think it is a good way because it means peoples mindsets are different. If they don’t win a medal, it doesn’t matter because most people didn’t. They don’t feel like they did badly.

 

[Janneke]

Yes, our competitions are longer but our awards presentations and much, much shorter.

I do think it is a good way because it means peoples mindsets are different. If they don’t win a medal, it doesn’t matter because most people didn’t. They don’t feel like they did badly.

Our system in NZ is similar, except there are usually just 3 medals for AA with ribbons for 1-3 on apparatus. Only one club that I know does medals for 1-3 on apparatus and one does ribbons for 1-6 on apparatus. There is even one club that only does medals for 2-3 AA and number 1 gets some weird sash thing (totally pointless according to my child, she would rather be 2nd there). And yes, sometimes we do have larger groups competing (although not 100+). Most girls don't expect to win a medal and are generally happy to know that they did the best they could. Having said that, there are definitely still sad faces and occasional tears when they fall or score less then they thought they deserved.

 

[Pineapple_Lump]

Our system in NZ is similar, except there are usually just 3 medals for AA with ribbons for 1-3 on apparatus. Only one club that I know does medals for 1-3 on apparatus and one does ribbons for 1-6 on apparatus. There is even one club that only does medals for 2-3 AA and number 1 gets some weird sash thing (totally pointless according to my child, she would rather be 2nd there). And yes, sometimes we do have larger groups competing (although not 100+). Most girls don't expect to win a medal and are generally happy to know that they did the best they could. Having said that, there are definitely still sad faces and occasional tears when they fall or score less then they thought they deserved.

I think you have missed the OP's point. This is not about awards given out - Australian and NZ probably have less level tens than some of the states in the US and defiantly less level tens than most of the 8 regions.

This scenario is more like the equivalent of the fifth best level seven out of say 20 from BOP not getting to compete at nations while there were only 4 level fives -so they all got to go. In the OP's situation it's not levels its the age group. With the quantity of gymnasts in one level it has to be split somehow to maintain consistency/sanity of judging and fairness.

There are 8 regions, 8 age groups and 7? gymnasts per region in each age group - so 448 gymnasts get to compete at level ten nationals in the USA - how many athlete at NZ nationals from level 5-10? Australian (level 8-10) would be around 200 or less. The sheer quantity of high level athletes in the states in not comparable.

 

[Aussie_coach]

I think you have missed the OP's point. This is not about awards given out - Australian and NZ probably have less level tens than some of the states in the US and defiantly less level tens than most of the 8 regions.

This scenario is more like the equivalent of the fifth best level seven out of say 20 from BOP not getting to compete at nations while there were only 4 level fives -so they all got to go. In the OP's situation it's not levels its the age group. With the quantity of gymnasts in one level it has to be split somehow to maintain consistency/sanity of judging and fairness.

There are 8 regions, 8 age groups and 7? gymnasts per region in each age group - so 448 gymnasts get to compete at level ten nationals in the USA - how many athlete at NZ nationals from level 5-10? Australian (level 8-10) would be around 200 or less. The sheer quantity of high level athletes in the states in not comparable.

We do have a similar situation. For us regionals is below states (each state is divided into several regions). And 6 gymnast from each level are selected to represent the region in the regional team challenge at states (similar for the state verses state team challenge)

There are 2 age divisions in each level. Three gymnasts are selected from the younger age division and three from the older age division. The older age division is often several times larger than the younger age division. So the youngest can breeze in and the oldest must fight hard for their spots, and need a much higher score.

Just like in the US we can’t split the age divisions down the middle, we can’t do it on an average because then the ages that each region qualified for state and each state qualifies for nationals would be different. The problem would then be transferred to Nationals, some large divisions, some small, uneven age groups etc.

 

[ODDBALL]

…fewer number of kids in the age group means top 7 includes kids that may have scored 35s when for other larger age groups the bottom score is 37s…

This happens to my DD every year. Our Region has a lot of strong gymnast that score between 38 and above the chance of being top 7 for Nationals are slim to none with her score of 37-38+ average . College coaches come to National to scout out recruits. Sadly not all of the Top gymnast will be there. It's an all around tough sport!

 

[josie55]

I don't know that I have the magic bullet solution, but here are some ideas:

- Adjusting the regions to be a bit more balanced.
- Having a regional competition, comprised of all-star teams from each region, and then regular age group sessions that are comprised of everyone else who qualifies in some semi-fair way, such as a minimum score, or overall top X kids per age group across all regions. Yes, scoring might be different, but maybe that can be addressed by flying judges to different regions, having more judges, or some other solution.
- Having a way for some kids to pre-qualify through a consistently excellent season. This would not be my dd this year, but I think that if a kid scores 38+ say three or four times in a season, she should get an automatic bid to Nationals. Again, Nationals is supposed to be the best of the best, and this would help ensure this.
- Maybe just make fewer age groups with more girls in each. Maybe one group with 8th grade and younger, one with 9th and 10th graders, and one with 11th and 12th graders. This would at least, mathematically, make things more even by eliminating this situation where some girls just go through their entire careers with a small number of super strong athletes with very close birthdays.

I recognize that it's hard, and there's no perfect solution, but I think there is a better solution. The wild card (now called 'all star' I think) helps and shows that improvement can happen. I don't think that fairness around placements and awards matters much at all, but more fairness around who qualifies to nationals would be a worthwhile effort, IMHO.

 

[CuriousCate]

Curious if those with gymnasts in very competitive regions where scores of 37-38+ do not move on to nationals have noticed any obvious impact on college recruiting for those kids. Or is this primarily seen with the younger age groups where recruitment is not yet a factor? Just wondering if this poses a true detriment to some of the most talented gymnasts or is more bothersome because it favors regions over individual athletes and therefore is inherently unfair to many.

 

[gym_dad32608]

I don't know that I have the magic bullet solution, but here are some ideas:

- Adjusting the regions to be a bit more balanced.
- Having a regional competition, comprised of all-star teams from each region, and then regular age group sessions that are comprised of everyone else who qualifies in some semi-fair way, such as a minimum score, or overall top X kids per age group across all regions. Yes, scoring might be different, but maybe that can be addressed by flying judges to different regions, having more judges, or some other solution.
- Having a way for some kids to pre-qualify through a consistently excellent season. This would not be my dd this year, but I think that if a kid scores 38+ say three or four times in a season, she should get an automatic bid to Nationals. Again, Nationals is supposed to be the best of the best, and this would help ensure this.
- Maybe just make fewer age groups with more girls in each. Maybe one group with 8th grade and younger, one with 9th and 10th graders, and one with 11th and 12th graders. This would at least, mathematically, make things more even by eliminating this situation where some girls just go through their entire careers with a small number of super strong athletes with very close birthdays.

I recognize that it's hard, and there's no perfect solution, but I think there is a better solution. The wild card (now called 'all star' I think) helps and shows that improvement can happen. I don't think that fairness around placements and awards matters much at all, but more fairness around who qualifies to nationals would be a worthwhile effort, IMHO.

I'm sorry, I dont mean to be the negative one here, but this all just veers too much in the "everyone gets a participation trophy" area. This sport is an individual sport, you do the best you can at the competition that day and see where you stack up. Score 38+s heading to NLC qualifier, and Avery Neff shows up. Hit a skill perfectly in the gym every time in practice and then stumble on said skill at competition. There is nothing unfair with that, unlucky maybe, but not unfair. Unfair implies that one gymnast only does 3 events or another is judged by a different code. Expanding age groups does create an unfair advantage given rates of physical development. Creating all-star teams and then having other "groups" compete just hands out more participation trophies. Having an average score throughout the season automatically qualifies you goes against the spirit of how you compete that day. If that's what the community wants, then fine but I would lodge my complaint that this type of change belongs more in Excel than DP.

Nationals are all well and good, and they really are a "trophy" for someone to qualify, but in the scheme of recruitment (and I assume that's really what is driving this discussion), it has marginal impact. I am extremely certain (from personal experience) that a L10 gymnast who is consistently scoring in the high 37s into 38s and doesnt make it to nationals is still going to get enough attention from colleges to reach all their goals. Coaches do not limit their recruitment to National qualifiers. Talent is going to get seen and have opportunities.

 

[Pigeon]

I've always thought percentages could be a good way of doing it. For example: Region 7 numbers for each session (these are in comp session order, not age group order FYI):

16, 17, 22, 26, 25, 19, 29, 23, 24, 14, 24, 26 for a total of 265 gymnasts (lowest group 14, highest 29). They are taking 84 to nationals, so about 32% of the 265.

If you took the top 32% from each age group you would have: 5, 5, 7, 8, 8, 6, 9, 7, 8, 5, 8, 8 and that would give you the magic number of 84. And those percentages should work out throughout all regions to give you the same number of gymnasts in each age group once they are all put together at nationals.

But then you wouldn't really be able to have the region team competition within each age group, which is a big part of the "fun" of nationals, and it's a great experience getting to practice with and compete with the other top girls in the region as a team.

In my opinion, having more groups of those top scorers isn't handing out participation trophies. You'd get some really good athletes in the those groups, and they don't go far out with awards at Nationals anyway.

I think the All-star/wildcard session that they've added is great. Had a conversation with a college coach once about the types of athletes he recruits. He said "I don't even really look at all-arounders, I can't compete with those big schools for them. So I look for gymnasts who are really strong on 2 events". So the wild card session is a great opportunity for those athletes.

 

[gym_dad32608]

Just because you have more gymnasts in a session doesnt mean you have better scorers in that group. So now you might have the scenario where a session with 16 gymnasts but 7 of them all score in the 37+ plus range and now you are back to the same rant. I think its fine if we want to figure out a different way of splitting the same pie. I dont agree with a scenario where we want to make the pie bigger because we feel sad that some people are left out.

I do like the specialists/wildcard session that they added, and I do think its reasonable to provide an avenue for event specialists.

Again, making it to nationals is not the definitive, be all, end all of getting recruited. Athletes consistently scoring well, will get opportunities.

 

[Flicfliclay]

I guess I am confused here, are there really kids that are scoring 38+'s and not making it to nationals? We are in a super competitive region (1) and I have not witnessed this happening.

 

[gym_dad32608]

I guess I am confused here, are there really kids that are scoring 38+'s and not making it to nationals? We are in a super competitive region (1) and I have not witnessed this happening.

No, but there are a few cases where gymnasts scoring 37s not making it while some other divisions 36s get you there. And we are talking about meet specific. I think sometimes people mix having a great season in which you scored 38+ multiple times but then just have a bad meet at regionals and not make it to nationals. It sucks but its not unfair. In the context of this original post it is ranting about how different divisions can have seemingly low scores and qualify while other divisions have incredibly high scores in order to qualify.

 

[Flicfliclay]

No, but there are a few cases where gymnasts scoring 37s not making it while some other divisions 36s get you there. And we are talking about meet specific. I think sometimes people mix having a great season in which you scored 38+ multiple times but then just have a bad meet at regionals and not make it to nationals. It sucks but its not unfair. In the context of this original post it is ranting about how different divisions can have seemingly low scores and qualify while other divisions have incredibly high scores in order to qualify.

Okay, I get it. Yeah, i guess we are just used to it at this point. It is what it is and I always say to my daughter... It's just how you compete on that day. I thought the poster was saying that girls aren't making it scoring 38+ at regional and not making it. I have never witnessed that.

 

[gymgal]

Region 8 here. I think the highest I have seen is a 37.7 staying home. That was before they expanded the age groups several years ago though. I haven't followed it much once my dd was out of JO. When my dd competed, each year there would be several 37+ girls not qualifying across all the age divisions. Would these girls have a shot of winning if they qualified? Most likely not AA (unless they just had a really bad day at regionals) but possibly placing really well in an individual event - but also, it is about just getting there - making it to Nationals. To watch other regions send girls with barely 35s while those with 37s stay home in stronger regions just stings... I get the reasons but it doesn't change how those gymnasts feel.

 

[josie55]

@gymgal - yes, you pretty much are nailing it when you say "To watch other regions send girls with barely 35s while those with 37s stay home in stronger regions just stings... I get the reasons but it doesn't change how those gymnasts feel."

While I appreciate that there are different POVs on this topic, I do take issue with comparing this to the idea that "everyone gets a participation trophy" mentality. We are talking about girls who have literally spent their entire lives in the sport trying to have this sort of pinnacle achievement, and then getting left home because of the bad luck of how the age and regional splits worked out. I promise you that I am well aware that life is not fair, gymnastics is not fair, control what you can control, etc. etc. and have lived by these ideals for my entire life, but I'm going to say that this one merits a conversation and not just an "ah well" shrug, IMHO.

We will roll with it, as we always do. Hopefully my kid will qualify, but if she doesn't that will be okay, too. I mean, there are soooo many pain points in this sport, this is just one of many, right?!

 

[bookworm]

EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR.....not to beat a dead horse but this subject is discussed ad nauseum every year since we started back in 2005...so yeah, it is what it is. I think when they expanded the age groups (or realigned them) , that was seen as a partial solution but there will always be kids that don't make it , for whatever reason....bad meet, bad event, lots of competitors in their age group, injury or illness, family emergency... it happens. I do agree somewhat with gym-dad3260 that doing all star teams or pre qualifiers isn't the answer...you need to show up the day of the meet and deliver. Kind of how it is in NCAA....ask Michigan. And if you don't qualify, there's nothing sinister or malicious about it, it's sports, not everybody wins.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

Many folks/gymnasts will move their kids to stronger states/gyms and no one thinks anything of it.

And that door swings both ways. Gymnasts are free to move to a ”weaker” state to increase their odds. It is a choice.

Also to note in todays Social Media world. A good gymnast can and will be noticed without going to Nationals.