Starting a High Performance Team Track ("A" Team vs. "B" Team)

[AlwaysCuriousMom]

I think having different tracks may be required in certain gyms. If the gym is inclusive, then there may have to be a separate track for the gymnasts who learn faster and/or need to be challenged and could perhaps move through the levels more quickly. But if the gym has a team that requires a high level of commitment and performance, then there is no need for a separate track. The gymnasts that can't keep up just leave the team and go elsewhere. I think as long as the gym knows what kind of program they are, and clearly state why/how things are done, it's up to us parents to decided which is best for our gymnasts. The only wrong way of doing things would be the way that is misrepresented, unclear, and unfair.

 

[JBS]

True that this already occurs but to make the B girls know that you already consider them B girls is the part that is hard to accept.

It is hard for the parents to accept. The gymnasts always know where they stand.

JBS, I know you wanted coaches opinions, but I just have to add my comment to this whole thread.

There is a very successful, highly competitive gym near me that actually splits the tracks for girls beginning at L4. Although the gym is very, very successful and continues to place girls at Nationals and win college scholarships, the competition among the PARENTS, yes, PARENTS, is intense. Esp. once the girls reach L7!! If the child doesn't make it into "Suzie's" training group, you'd think World War III has begun.

At any rate, the gym is very highly respected around the country and, as I've said, is very, very successful. There are also no "secrets" as to who is in what group, and of course, girls can fluctuate between groups as their motivation and skills develop, or as interest wanes.

The gym has been operating this way for years, everyone knows how it's done and it's truly not an issue, except for some of the very vocal parents.

Yes...I believe that the truth is key in a system like this. It is never the kids that cannot handle the truth.

I think people are getting hung up on the girls from two different teams (in the same gym) competing against each other.

Reality check - these girls are likely to be in different age groups for awards anyway. It is more likely that Team A girls are going to be younger than team B girls. And even if they happen to be in the same age group, if team A girl is already advanced (regardless of whether a gym splits them or not) she's generally going to score higher. We can't be naive to think that our girls (or us as parents) don't know this.

I kind of liken this to girls repeating a level. Presumably they will score much higher the second year around. Is it fair that these girls will compete alongside a 1st year at the level?

JBS - I think people have given you a clear message about how parents view this type of system. It doesn't mean it should not be done but in the attempt to not alienate your families, setting up the system as specific as possible might help - this team is for girls we feel will be able to fast track to optionals in 2 or 3 years instead of 4-5yrs. And the criteria are current skill level, dedication, ability of parent to commit to the more intense schedule (as seen by previous attendance), etc. You can come up with a list of pertinent factors.

I think if presented in this light, many parents would specifically choose to not go that route for their girls. Girls competing against each other in this format of team (if they were in the same age group) would have a totally different mindset - she is training differently. Of course her scores are going to be different.

Yes...agreed. Everything would have to very clear up front.

I think there is a bigger issue at play here. A better solution might be to set stricter standards and requirements for making your team. You've said that you take kids on your team that other gyms wouldn't take and that your excel girls are just learning robhs. I actually love that you are giving these girls chances that they were not given at other gyms, however it seems like you are trying to have 2 completely different philosophies/ missions at once. One that is to offer a gymnastics team opportunity to most children even when they may not be ready for team and another that wants to produce high level gymnasts, possibly pretty quickly and pick out early talent. It seems like your team is moving in the direction of number 2.

Here's my experience from what I've seen work with our kids and program... We have 2 tracks- a JO and an excel. Neither team needs to be divided any further. All of these kids are talented, some just want more. Usually those ones go to JO. If a kid starts in excel and later wants more hours and commitment, they can go JO later. The reason they are able to do this is because the teams are close enough equivalent. (So a kid without ROBHS would never be considered for either team). Is that unfair that we don't offer kids without this a spot on team?, I don't think so. They can choose to continue working hard in the pre-team group or they can go to a team alternative program. Not sure if my point is coming across clear or not.

If a kid does not want to practice the required hours or is not working hard, why take them on your team in the first place?

Our team is shifting to a new vision. This vision change will take several years as it is not just a new coach coming in that doesn't really care about the previous vision. With time the new vision will overtake the old vision and we will have exactly what you are describing. This is just not the case right now.

Our gym has an A track and a B track. There are issues with jealousy among the parents for sure. The A track gets more hours (same money though) and more coaches for less kids. Yet they are expected to all compete together at meets and get along great. For the most part the kids do. From what I can tell though - the scores are not much different from the A and B girls, in fact many B girls score consistently higher than the A girls which makes the parents really wonder about the logic behind separating them. I don't get angry about it, but it makes me shake my head in confusion and I wouldn't recommend doing it the way my gym is doing it.

Interesting that the cost is the same for different hours. We will be charging more for more hours.

It seems that you want to take your program to the next level and no parent should have issue with this.

I have always believed and still do, that there is a gym for everyone, but not every gym is for everyone.

As gymcoach26 says, perhaps the solution isn't creating tracks but clearly communicating to gymnasts & parents alike what the expectations are to be a team member on both the USAG JO and USAIGC (Xcel?) teams. Also, is the goal to have a very strong compulsory pool to draw from and develop into the optional team, thereby keeping gymnasts longer? Again, I don't see anything wrong with this.

Stating the maybe not-so-obvious: separation occurs naturally. Why do you think that there is such a huge drop off with every move up in level? It gets harder and not everyone is cut out to make it. And it isn't any ONE thing that dictates, it's a complex combination of many factors that allows the strongest to survive.

Good luck!

Thank you for the luck...yes we are looking to move to the next level. Our main problem is that we are not just going to eliminate some of the kids that have been with the program under a less strict vision. I'm sure 5 years from now we will have no reason for an A and B divide.

Both JO and Xcel are USAG program.

Except the A team will be trained on a different track? Different coaches, hours? If not what is the point? So the A team will have an advantage over the B team in that regard no matter what.

Drills and spotting works very differently on different ages and body types. With the same coaches and hours...I would train a group of 7 year old L5's much differently than a group of 12 year old L5's....just the way it is.

 

[JBS]

I think having different tracks may be required in certain gyms. If the gym is inclusive, then there may have to be a separate track for the gymnasts who learn faster and/or need to be challenged and could perhaps move through the levels more quickly. But if the gym has a team that requires a high level of commitment and performance, then there is no need for a separate track. The gymnasts that can't keep up just leave the team and go elsewhere. I think as long as the gym knows what kind of program they are, and clearly state why/how things are done, it's up to us parents to decided which is best for our gymnasts. The only wrong way of doing things would be the way that is misrepresented, unclear, and unfair.

Yes...good word..."inclusive"...that we are.

I agree...it is up to the parents to pick what best suites their child and family. It is my job as a team director to make sure the parents are informed with the truth.

 

[ZZMom]

I think it is very common for this type of division to take place. When my older DD was a gymnast, she moved back and forth between the "A" group and the "B" group depending on where she was with her gymnastics at that point. There were no apologies and it was understood by everyone in the gym.

I don't understand how else a large team could be divided? ZZ would definitely be in the "B" group at this point since she lacks the focus needed to advance quickly. She has the right body type and is strong and flexible, so in a year or so, she might make the "A" group. We'll just have to see whether gymnastics really clicks with her.

Also, this type of division definitely takes place in other sports. My older son was always a "B" level hockey player but worked hard and ended up playing at a high level. He was motivated by being placed in lower intensity groups. On the other hand, my 10 year old son has consistently been invited to practice (and play) with older age groups because he is very skilled for his age. I think he would have become bored and possibly quit the sport if he had been placed in an age (not skill) based group.

I understand that parents are competitive but I think it is our responsibility to teach our children that being in a "B" group today doesn't mean that is where you'll always be. It may just be the best thing for your training at that moment in time.

Best Wishes,

ZZMom

 

[JBS]

...it is our responsibility to teach our children that being in a "B" group today doesn't mean that is where you'll always be.

Love this quote! Thank you for your response. Someone that that that the motivation to work their way into the "A" group is someone to watch.

 

[JBS]

Thank you to everyone...this thread has given me much to think about. I look forward to reading future responses. I am going to check out of this thread for a while with the following quote:

But as someone pointed out earlier, it is not really about fairness; it is about taking finite resources and applying them where they will have the most effect. ~Jim Walsh​

 

[TexasRose]

I can see where this system would make a lot of sense. My DD is level 3 and is 6. There are girls up to 11 on level 3 with her. So when they train bars together as a team the bars are set for the tallest girl- who is over a foot taller than my DD. The spring board is set for the heaviest girl ( I guess you can take springs out?)- who is 4 times my DD's weight. So when DD does vault she gets no give at all- she's 37 lbs! If they split the level 3 team up into 2 groups based on age/body type/ etc I think it would make for a more productive practice. The coaches could set the bars at one place for the entire practice instead of either constantly changing it or having the little bitties just have to do it spaced for big girls. One of our level 5 girls is having a hard time jumping to high bar- she's one of the little ones. If there was a little bittie group this wouldn't be a problem because the bars would be set.

Also, I know my DD needs more instruction and reminders sometimes than the older girls on her team. I think that breaking the team down by age for practice would be helpful for the gymnasts and the coaches. Just my opinion. I think I know where you're coming from- you want to offer competitive gymnastics to as many girls as possible but at the same time you want to raise the bar for your team. So having the 2 tracks would allow you to grow your program without leaving the girls who aren't so serious about gym in the dust. Am I close?

 

[Kiwi]

At our gym, some girls are placed in a 'development' group based on natural talent, strength, flexibility, age and body type. This is kind of our 'A' stream. They get the best coaches and train a lot more hours, than our 'B' stream competitive girls. Most of the development girls compete IDP (International Development Program), although a few compete STEPs, like the B stream girls. So mostly the two streams are not competing against each other, although in a few cases they do. In those cases, usually the development girls do place higher, but not always. Occasionally, girls are moved into or out of the development group depending on the decision of the development coaches.

This is just the way it is and all the parents seem to accept that. The thing is, the development group is a huge commitment in hours and money and dedication by the gymnasts and parents, and the pressure is high. I know my DD wouldn't want to be in that group, not that she is likely to be chosen as she isn't what they're looking for, but if she was, I think the pressure could be too much for her and she'd get too tired out from all the hours. It isn't for everyone.

 

[Krystan]

I can see both sides of this issue well, buy I think, given the situation JBS is describing, it really does make sense. Our gym used to only take young "typical" gymnast types in USAG and everyone else was shunted to PrepOp. My dd who didn't start gymnastics until she was 9 but progressed very quickly thought she would be left out simply because of her age and was very upset by this. However, they now allow anyone with skills and potential to try the JO levels, and PrepOp is more for those that don't want the long hours and higher cost. They now have WAY more people than they have ever had in L5. What they are doing to deal with it is, at the same practice, dividing the girls up loosely by level/potential within L5. These groups rotate the events, same coaches stay at event, but each group is focusing on different things while there. The more "advanced" group is girls in second year L5 or what they perceive as having more potential to go further/faster (younger, body type, more daring, etc). They are doing a lot more uptraining while the other two groups are focusing on kips, and solidifying basics. The groups are changed around every few weeks, but it's clear (to me anyway) why it needs to be done to keep each child at a level that is challenging but not overwhelming or unsafe to them. My dd (who is competing L4 this season due to a "delayed kip" ), is in the "lower" of the three groups, but they are all still considered the same team. I can see if they get any bigger it might make sense to have completely different practices for the two tracks. I think people were jumping on the assumption that you would automatically label someone based on age or body type. It sounds, however, like you would still be giving equal opportunities if desired of the same practice time, and equal level of coaching. In this case, it seems like it would work for you. Maybe when you get the Xcel program up and running, some of your L5/6's may prefer that as a respectable option. I hope it works out for you!

 

[gymmomtoo]

I have no personal experience with A and B tracks at gymnastics and I am a parent, not a coach, but I'm going to offer my opinion anyway (hey, it's a public message board, I can do that!).

If you are going to do this, and you sound like you are, then in order to have fewer parents upset, I would suggest adding a day--make it "optional" and cost more and, in your email announcing the change, let them all know that you know some gymnasts and parents have expressed an interest in training harder and looking to do more and you want to offer then that opportunity. So you don't have people coming and going constantly, I would have it so they have to sign up for it--not just a drop in thing, but a commitment.

Also, during practice what's wrong with separating the girls by ability? Doesn't have to be a formal A or B track, but can vary by the day. Our gym does that. One group always practices harder skills. If a girl has been working hard--she might get moved to the harder group for the day.

And I know you said you want happy gymnasts, but if you don't also have happy parents, you will eventually end up with fewer gymnasts.

 

[Mack_the_Ripper]

In the same way that Prep-Op/Xcel is different from JO in terms of commitment, so too should the JO program be divided if it must be. In my gym, we have several practice groups divided amongst the levels. At the optional level, there are two potential groups - and the gymnasts choose which group they will be in based on how many hours they are willing to commit. The lower hours group tends to be younger and closer to level 7. Additionally, there is an advanced TOPS-track group that does 2-a-day practices year-round, which consists of one gymnast. Thus, the gymnasts who have the drive and desire get to be in the group that gets more attention from coaches.

 

[JBS]

Alright...I'm coming back in for a bit.

So for those of you that disagree with my concept...you disagree with the basic concept of TOPs also...correct?

From what I can see...USAG currently operates a three tiered system:

• JO
• Xcel
• Tops/Hopes/Elite

Now if the "A" team was a TOPs only team...it would definitely have the highest drop out rate. In other words...if they fall behind the TOPs requirements for their age...they would not be allowed on the team. In my opinion...the TOPs program is not a training program...it is an elimination program.

 

[JBS]

The following is from this link: :: USA Gymnastics :: About USA Gymnastics ::

Developmental Programs

Artistic and rhythmic gymnastics and trampoline and tumbling have age-group, developmental programs to identify young, talented gymnasts. The program for women is called the Talent Opportunity Program (TOPs), while the programs for men’s and rhythmic gymnastics are called Future Stars. Trampoline and tumbling’s developmental program is called JumpStart. The women’s, men’s and trampoline and tumbling programs have local, state and national testing, while rhythmic has national testing.


For women’s gymnastics, the Talent Opportunity Program (TOPs) is a nationwide, annual program to identify young gymnasts who have the ability to excel in the sport. More than 3,100 gymnasts participate in state and regional testing, with more than 300 qualifying for national testing based on state and regional scores. State and regional testing is conducted for gymnasts 7-11 years of age, with the 9-11 year olds eligible to advance to national testing. The best 7-and 8-year-olds qualify based on their test scores from state and regional testing, while the 9-11 year olds are named to the team based on national test scores. The TOPs National Team has about 70 gymnasts, approximately 20 gymnasts in each age group.


For the men, the Future Stars program is designed is to identify talented athletes and to get them started on the right developmental path to national and international success. The program uses a special competitive routine format to evaluate the skill, strength and flexibility development of the athlete. The Future Stars National Championships features the best 10-, 11- and 12-year-olds in the United States who perform special Future Stars competitive routines. Based on the results at the championships, USA Gymnastics identifies the Future Stars Developmental Team, which includes the top 18 gymnasts in both the 10- and 11-year-old divisions and 14 gymnasts in the 12-year-old division.


The programs for rhythmic gymnastics and trampoline and tumbling are aimed toward 7-12 year olds. Rhythmic gymnastics has national testing for its Future Stars program, which helps determine if an athlete is suited for the elite level of rhythmic gymnastics. Based on the results, a national developmental team is named. For trampoline and tumbling, the Jumpstart program begins on the club level and then advances to state and national testing. Based on national tests for fitness, flexibility, strength and skills, a national JumpStart Team is named.

 

[Faith]

My point of view is I don't want my 6/7/8 year old B-teamer written off as never making Level 7/college/elite.

I think the aim should be to keep as many kids in the sport as possible. There should always be the option to move between streams, should a child be a late developer. All children at level X should get the option for the same hours with the same quality coaching. If they're split into groups on *current* ability, then fine, but giving one group more opportunity is going to mean they can never jump up to the A from B.

I think JBS' plan sounds fine. Split by ability for now until the program is up and running at the higher levels it aims for. As I said, if I were a parent, I'd have no problem with " b" team, as long as I knew should my DD suddenly develop a serious aim at 9 or 10, it's not too late and the gym would still provide the option to move to higher levels as she gets older. In fact I'd quite like a b team up until then, so she can be challenged but not pushed to burnout. But I agree, transparency, and clear goals so the child/parents know what they have to do to get moved into the A team.

 

[Granny Smith]

At my dd's gym, they are all trained to the "A" standard for USAG. Our gym does have another team, USAIGC that is similar to XCel, or whatever everyone calls it. USAIGC requires less time, money and the girls can learn skills at their own rate. There are girls that go directly into USAIGC and there are girls who switch because they can not keep up with USAG, at the pace that the coaches want. USAG can switch to USAIGC, but USAIGC can not come to USAG - at dd's gym it doesn't work that way.

There is attrition through the levels but that's the way it goes. Your expectations as a member on the USAG team are know. Now everyone runs in to a block, injury or whatever here and there, but you either work through it or you don't. If you do not meet the standards that the coaches require for the next level, well then you don't go. My dd had a great L9 season this past yr, she made it to Easterns and did fairly well, considering she competed on arm that was requiring surgery. Immediately after Eastern she had surgery and went through the proper channels of recovery and because she is not where she needs to be (in the coaches eye's for 10), she will do L9 again. Sure I could take her to probably any other gym in the area and she would walk in as a 10 at those gyms, but that's not the standard at our gym.

I remember when my dd was a L7. I remember the day after L7 States when my dd walked into her gym as the L7 AA State Champion & I'll never forget the words her HC said.... she said "I remember when she was little that we didn't even want to put her on the team!" I'll never forget that, she was State AA Champion!

DD's gym would never let her do TOPs, she wasn't good enough. Well maybe as a little kid, 7-9 yrs old, maybe she didn't appear to be, but my dd is now 15 and the only girl who is of "teenage years" and an optional gymnast that can do 5 press HSs, she used to be able to do the 10, but it's been hard since she's coming off of elbow surgery in June - this out of about 20 optional girls that are teenagers. She can do all the PA test requirements for TOPs (with the exception of the 10 presses, with good reason though right now) still because everyone trains them, not just the little tikes. We have in-house meets (optionals) leading up to the girls actual season and before every meet, the girls are tested on the PA skills.

Demand excellence from all of your gymnasts and let them decide for themselves if they are cut for your program. Have alternatives for those who, for lack of better words, don't cut it - which I believe you do. Don't push girls through levels just to push, if they are lacking keep them back. My dd's program is demanding, but when times get tough and the thought to leave and go somewhere else arises... we know it's would always be a step down and never do it. My dd's team goes to meets and every single girl in her level believes they can go out there and win. They know their biggest competition is their teammates. There are no "warm bodies" as fillers - it's really wonderful to see. They are a very proud group who, despite how good they all are, are extremely supportive of each other.

 

[k2bdeutmeyer]

I guess I don't seen any issue with it as long as it's done in the manner you're stating. I know people keep bringing up "writing off" the B teamers. I don't feel like that's what you're saying.

I think it can be a good thing to have 2 different streams. One a little slower paced, but still set with high standards (JO - B team) and one that is a little more challenging and faster paced (JO - A team) for those who need a little more. IMO, that actually is MORE fair to both sets of kids. This way you aren't pushing your B teamers faster and harder than they can handle, and your A teamers are getting more of what they need without being "held back" by the B teamers.

Just my $0.02.

 

[JBS]

There is another thread going about this same thing right now...please read the following post:

Link RemovedEDIT: The link above points to a post that addresses the concept of making sure no one is "written off". Writing off kids is not the concept.

 

[2gymmies]

I hesitate to comment again... but I wish our gym had this sort of thing from an early age - we have a separate group, but it doesn't kick in until they get older (like through the levels vs. elite/college track). My little dd is ready for more challenge in some areas but she isn't working on it because the group isn't ready for it - now that is not to say she I want her to be on some crazy path, but at least right now, she is able to pick things up quicker than her group (except for her stride circle, hee hee, she could be the first kid ever to kip before getting a stride circle). I think it is somewhat about meeting every child's needs - just like schools send some kids to special teachers for both extremes of the learning spectrum, gym could consider both ends of the gymnastics learning spectrum! JMHO...

 

[gymdog]

Here are the two options that I would consider first if I were in your shoes:

1. Rather than allocating coaches for A or B team, I would allocate more coaching resources to Excel and move girls over there. I understand that the girls currently there are just learning RO BHS, but I don't understand why it has to be this way if you have enough coaches overall for everyone...you could move coaching hours around to shift some kids to a more competitive Excel team. This does require difficult conversations with some parents. But you can play up that their kid could learn x, y, and z on floor which they are close to, without having to have x, y, and z on bars which they struggle with.

2. If the major issue is commitment, then add an optional day of practice and hopefully the most committed (smaller group) come to it. Now if the issue is talent and you want to a train a group of kids for high levels and it's just not realistic even for some committed ones...then an invitation-only extra day (but keep the same level groups). This will also require difficult conversations, but may be less dramatic than having an A and B stream especially if you set entry requirements such as...in order to join this group they need two stalder presses, kip cast, etc. (based on level/experience).

Or, unofficially divide the groups at practices...it will be more flexible to move a kid up or down this way. When the groups go different hours, that becomes tougher. But I understand the dilemma when some people want less hours. So the additional practice combined with splitting the groups unofficially is probably the strategy I'd go with. Along with moving a group of kids to Excel particularly if they are older and can learn some optional skills but won't progress well in the JO program. Now I would take age with a grain of salt but I'm assuming your examples were just general remarks. Unfortunately every gym can't be everything to everyone though. I have seen kids start level 4 at 11 or so and be kids who I could look at and say in two years they'd be doing optional skills (I was one of these kids myself) and there's other kids in the same boat I see who work hard but physically just aren't going to do it. In some gyms those kids would never make a team group at all, so I can appreciate you're trying to give the most opportunities overall by not treating everyone the same.

 

[JBS]

Here are the two options that I would consider first if I were in your shoes:

1. Rather than allocating coaches for A or B team, I would allocate more coaching resources to Excel and move girls over there. I understand that the girls currently there are just learning RO BHS, but I don't understand why it has to be this way if you have enough coaches overall for everyone...you could move coaching hours around to shift some kids to a more competitive Excel team. This does require difficult conversations with some parents. But you can play up that their kid could learn x, y, and z on floor which they are close to, without having to have x, y, and z on bars which they struggle with.

This is not an option. We have many "B" style gymnasts that operate just fine in the JO world. Girls will move to Xcel as they wish. If there was a forced move to Xcel...that would be considered "writing off" a gymnast to many. As I stated...our Xcel program will develop with time...I am not looking to force a change in it. I am very happy with how it is currently run and who it is currently run by. By forcing changes on the Xcel team I would be stating that the head Xcel coach has no control over the program. I would probably lose this coach and be forced to run it myself.

Our Xcel team currently has over 20 gymnasts with 10 to 15 more looking to join. It is quickly becoming the most popular and profitable team program in our gym. It's all about fun.

Unlike many clubs...we did not start our Xcel team with kids from the JO program. We started it from our upper level (older) rec. classes.

Also...Xcel is not at a high level in our state. Here is a Prep-op (Xcel) Gold (highest level in our state) beam routine:

[video=youtube;D5_ouj83XzI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5_ouj83XzI[/video]

2. If the major issue is commitment, then add an optional day of practice and hopefully the most committed (smaller group) come to it. Now if the issue is talent and you want to a train a group of kids for high levels and it's just not realistic even for some committed ones...then an invitation-only extra day (but keep the same level groups). This will also require difficult conversations, but may be less dramatic than having an A and B stream especially if you set entry requirements such as...in order to join this group they need two stalder presses, kip cast, etc. (based on level/experience).

Already do the first one occasionally on Sunday nights. The second seems the same as A and B to me.

Or, unofficially divide the groups at practices...it will be more flexible to move a kid up or down this way. When the groups go different hours, that becomes tougher. But I understand the dilemma when some people want less hours. So the additional practice combined with splitting the groups unofficially is probably the strategy I'd go with. Along with moving a group of kids to Excel particularly if they are older and can learn some optional skills but won't progress well in the JO program. Now I would take age with a grain of salt but I'm assuming your examples were just general remarks. Unfortunately every gym can't be everything to everyone though. I have seen kids start level 4 at 11 or so and be kids who I could look at and say in two years they'd be doing optional skills (I was one of these kids myself) and there's other kids in the same boat I see who work hard but physically just aren't going to do it. In some gyms those kids would never make a team group at all, so I can appreciate you're trying to give the most opportunities overall by not treating everyone the same.

We always divide the gymnasts in certain ways...and we tell them why. We have 21 L4's...they all come on Fridays. If they are not so good at RO-BHS...they are told that they are being put in the RO-BHS group in order to improve their RO-BHS.

I understand what your saying with moving kids to Xcel and building that program up a bit. It just will not work right now in my current situation. I hope that in a few years we will have kids doing giants, BHS on beam, etc...on the Xcel team. Right now we do not.

EDIT: Here is another Xcel (Prep) video from my state (just for reference)...

[video=youtube;ZWydUamWlxI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWydUamWlxI[/video]