WAG Regional Percentages Question - R8

[ProudDad]

So do you feel better now............

I always like to have an idea of how stuff works (or doesn't) I'll be interested to see how well the model fits the 2016 L6 data and what the actual regional meet results are - but I won't subject ya'll to that... unless someone asks me to privately

 

[gymgal]

Prouddad, I would love to see your stats after state meet. I am a numbers person too. But maybe the new thread should be moved to the region 8 group.

BTW, interesting that NC has the largest SD. They are known for being the toughest scoring state in the region and I have always suspected there was a larger than expected range of high/low scores. Now I know my suspicions are well founded.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

I thought the stats were closer then I had expected.

 

[gymmutti]

You are a man after my own heart when it comes to stats. My job is also very statistical in nature and I love this stuff.

 

[JoyAvenueMom]

So curious about this because it seems a lot less fair than taking the highest scores across all age groups. What made you think it seemed very fair? Truly just curious.

There were two different sessions, and I think it is reasonable there could be some variance in scores from one session to the other. This is one way to mitigate that effect.

And, of course, it depends on what you consider "fair". Some (myself included) think it's fair to give girls in the older age groups a slight advantage for making regionals. For some 15yo, L7 may be the end of the road, and L7 regionals will rank among her highest accomplishments. The 9yo who might get bumped (even though she had a higher AA) will likely have many more opportunities for accomplishments. Not "fair" in once sense, but certainly so in another.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

Regarding age groups. A case can be made if you are a level you are capable of doing what is required so age shouldn't matter. You can either do it or not. Now I could see having a time limit as in not being able to do a level forever, or a max score out or max age out. But in theory. If you can do say L7, you can do it, so judge all together. I know thats blasphemy to many though. . .

 

[Ali'sMom]

There were two different sessions, and I think it is reasonable there could be some variance in scores from one session to the other.

I would like to see it done per session. We had some variance at States this year from one session to the next, and I think if they did it the top "so many" per session would alleviate any differences due to tired judges, or early morning, etc (don't get me wrong - I don't blame them for some variance, as they are indeed human, and do get tired, etc). where there might be tighter scoring in the early sessions, and it loosen up a little as the day goes on.

Not that I have any dog in this fight - my daughter was the one who came to us cheering that she didn't have to go to Regionals - LOL!

 

[Pineapple_Lump]

Some (myself included) think it's fair to give girls in the older age groups a slight advantage for making regionals. For some 15yo, L7 may be the end of the road, and L7 regionals will rank among her highest accomplishments. The 9yo who might get bumped (even though she had a higher AA) will likely have many more opportunities for accomplishments. Not "fair" in once sense, but certainly so in another.

What if that 9 year old has to finish at the end of the season due to her parents financial situation?. What if her family is moving to a location with no opportunity to continue in gymnastics? No one is making the 15 year old finish, she can continue gymnastics if she loves it. Best not to fiddle to make situations 'fair' because usually fair to one is a disservice to another. You earn it or you don't, but you should be proud of your effort and grateful for any opportunity.

 

[ProudDad]

There were two different sessions, and I think it is reasonable there could be some variance in scores from one session to the other. This is one way to mitigate that effect.

For some 15yo, L7 may be the end of the road, and L7 regionals will rank among her highest accomplishments. The 9yo who might get bumped (even though she had a higher AA) will likely have many more opportunities for accomplishments. Not "fair" in once sense, but certainly so in another.

OK, you piqued my curiousity...

Using the same 2015 Data... I grabbed Florida's State Meet using the same 73rd percentile ranking and heres what I found:

Combined Sessions
Average: 36.3028
SD: 1.2943
Cutoff: 37.225
# of Girls above Cutoff: 82

Session 6
Average: 36.3594
SD: 1.1513
Cutoff: 37.175
# of Girls above Cutoff: 13
Delta from combined +5

Session 7
Average: 36.5769
SD: 1.3509
Cutoff: 37.75!!
# of Girls above Cutoff: 14
Delta from combined -5

Session 8
Average: 36.2284
SD: 1.4513
Cutoff: 37.2
# of Girls above Cutoff: 14
Delta from combined +1

Session 9
Average: 35.9804
SD: 1.2828
Cutoff: 36.95
# of Girls above Cutoff: 15
Delta from combined +4

Session 10
Average: 36.3813
SD: 1.2145
Cutoff: 37.275
# of Girls above Cutoff: 14
Delta from combined -2

Session 11
Average: 36.3133
SD: 1.1994
Cutoff: 37.4
# of Girls above Cutoff: 13
Delta from combined -2

This means that Session 9 had the lowest score cutoff with 36.95, compared to the combined of 37.225, however because of the tight grouping of scores Session 6 squeezes in 5 more girls in only a .05 difference!

The new low means that 106 becomes the new lowest combined AA score that goes to our imaginary session ranked regionals. This means that there are 24 girls with scores better than other session scores who would be left out. The highest ranking girl who would not go to regionals under this methodology would be #56 with a 37.575 - almost half the placement of the lowest scorer who would go.

I don't know what the ages were, but if anyone does it would be very interesting to see what ages correlate to which sessions!

 

[gymbeam]

The age groups were scrambled within the different sessions. You can look on MMS and see which groups were in each sessions. (The groups are numbered 1-24 and are youngest to oldest but I don't know how to find out what the actual ages/birth dates were.)
http://www.mymeetscores.com/meet.pl?meetid=50513&pb=N&ts=&level=7

 

[gymbeam]

Maybe we should start having 2 day meets like swim and do one event at a time so everyone is scored by the same judges in the same session. NOT!

 

[ProudDad]

The age groups were scrambled within the different sessions. You can look on MMS and see which groups were in each sessions. (The groups are numbered 1-24 and are youngest to oldest but I don't know how to find out what the actual ages/birth dates were.)
http://www.mymeetscores.com/meet.pl?meetid=50513&pb=N&ts=&level=7

I saw that but couldn't make heads or tails out of the divisions... For example, Session 6 had Divisions 13, 24, 3, and 5. The only thing I noticed is that the lower number divisions had significantly more high scores, especially 2 & 5 (Session 7 & 6, respectively).

 

[ProudDad]

Reread that... if the divisions are in ascending age order, the second youngest girls in FL were a force to be reckoned with...

 

[gymbeam]

Yes they were! With Florida being so big, several of those youngest groups actually included very high scorers. That seems to always be the case everywhere though- the older groups include more girls who were either late starters or had slow progression so they aren't usually as competitive.

 

[ProudDad]

OK... only because it needed the context of my OP ... We had our State meet for L6 this past weekend and NC had 209 gymnasts attend SC had 147 attend - yet somehow we both had only 22 bids... Georgia had 353 gymnasts and somehow got 63 bids. Sure NC only brought 59% of the gymnasts to the table compared to GA, but we only got 35% of the bids they did. I return to my original conjecture that NC got ROYALLY screwed in the bid count.

DD was right at the 50/209 mark due to a bad grip on transition to high (it happens - this was one of those why can't they score the practice days), but managed to take 3rd and 4th right behind the Southeastern girls on two events. So mathematically she still wouldn't have made regionals even if NC had gotten a not just fair, but remotely reasonable number of bids comparatively - but I saw a number of other really talented gymnasts that deserved to represent NC at regionals fall short of the 37.5 cutoff... the 37.2 I estimated as a "fair" cutoff would have given 37 bids... which just happens to be 59% of the 63 that GA got... Mind blown

 

[ascarter1]

OK... only because it needed the context of my OP ... We had our State meet for L6 this past weekend and NC had 209 gymnasts attend SC had 147 attend - yet somehow we both had only 22 bids... Georgia had 353 gymnasts and somehow got 63 bids. Sure NC only brought 59% of the gymnasts to the table compared to GA, but we only got 35% of the bids they did. I return to my original conjecture that NC got ROYALLY screwed in the bid count.

DD was right at the 50/209 mark due to a bad grip on transition to high (it happens - this was one of those why can't they score the practice days), but managed to take 3rd and 4th right behind the Southeastern girls on two events. So mathematically she still wouldn't have made regionals even if NC had gotten a not just fair, but remotely reasonable number of bids comparatively - but I saw a number of other really talented gymnasts that deserved to represent NC at regionals fall short of the 37.5 cutoff... the 37.2 I estimated as a "fair" cutoff would have given 37 bids... which just happens to be 59% of the 63 that GA got... Mind blown

This might have been said already, but I think the numbers are based on a percentage of the number of qualifiers + a percentage of the number of gymnasts that had a minimum score of 36 (I could be totally wrong-but it seems like I heard/read that somewhere).

Which would explain why some states have fewer competing but equal number of qualifiers for regionals, I think...

Maybe...

But that being said, I still don't understand which percentage or formula or really anything else.

It's all so confusing, I just smile and wave!

 

[gymbeam]

Right- how many actually come to the state meet does not have anything to do with bids.

 

[AmandaLynn]

Maybe coaches in some states are less likely to actually send their numbers to the state chair and the numbers are skewed...

 

[JoyAvenueMom]

What if that 9 year old has to finish at the end of the season due to her parents financial situation?. What if her family is moving to a location with no opportunity to continue in gymnastics? No one is making the 15 year old finish, she can continue gymnastics if she loves it. Best not to fiddle to make situations 'fair' because usually fair to one is a disservice to another. You earn it or you don't, but you should be proud of your effort and grateful for any opportunity.

Hence...why I stated that it depends on what you consider "fair". I don't disagree with you entirely. However, keep in mind there is a reason for age groups in the first place. In how many other sports are children so far apart in age required to compete directly against one another? (I don't know the answer, but suspect it is fairly small) So, on a theoretical note, should regional competitions be for "the best" in the state , or "the best in each age group" in the state? I guess in our case, the powers that be decided on somewhere in the middle. I totally understand the logic behind both positions, and wouldn't have an issue either way.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

Hence...why I stated that it depends on what you consider "fair". I don't disagree with you entirely. However, keep in mind there is a reason for age groups in the first place. In how many other sports are children so far apart in age required to compete directly against one another? (I don't know the answer, but suspect it is fairly small) So, on a theoretical note, should regional competitions be for "the best" in the state , or "the best in each age group" in the state? I guess in our case, the powers that be decided on somewhere in the middle. I totally understand the logic behind both positions, and wouldn't have an issue either way.

I realize we could go round and round on this stuff. And I have some I opinions on the age groups and reasons for them. But the discussions are always interesting.

Most sports have age groups in part because the size of the competitor matters. Having 12 yr olds play six year olds in say, soccer, football, lacrosse, hockey would be incredibly one sided for big kids literally and would probably be a safety issue. And the age groups are more about grouping by size, as in kids being around the same size for their age. And yes there will always be outliers.

I think one of the more fair divisions are weight division sports like wrestling.

Things like gymnastics there are requirements of having certain skills, if you have them for the level, it's not really about age, you compete the level. I tend to more a max age as well as a min and max score to be done with the level. Consider it much like eligibility time.

My daughter a few years back pointed out how she has more medals then her friend. And I had to set her straight. Gymnasts have an opportunity to get a medal at every meet. Her friends who play soccer and baseball do not. Someone's trophies or lack there of don't make them good or not so good. But that is a life lesson that evolves with time (and it has with her no longer 6 yr old self).

And now the part that gets parents around here crazy, but my JMO (and really it's all our opinion unless we are one of the rule makers), one (not all just one) of the reasons there more medals, age groups and such. Is it keeps kids in the sport. There a many a parent who would be less inclined to write a check if the odds of a medal were drastically reduced.