WAG Top developmental JO programs in each state

[Seeker]

Without mentioning a particular state or gym, which "stats" are wrong?

# of gymnasts at a level (way, way low) which in turn impacts the percentages that follow.

 

[wandrewsjr]

# of gymnasts at a level (way, way low) which in turn impacts the percentages that follow.

The article says "all stats based on the 2016-2017 competitive season", so I assume they are using number of gymnasts at each level that actually competed that season(not number of gymnasts that a gym says they might have trainging at that level), probably using info from posted state and regional meet results. In my state those numbers corroborate pretty closely. Are they still off when using that parameter?

 

[3rd_time_around]

The article says "all stats based on the 2016-2017 competitive season", so I assume they are using number of gymnasts at each level that actually competed that season(not number of gymnasts that a gym says they might have trainging at that level), probably using info from posted state and regional meet results. In my state those numbers corroborate pretty closely. Are they still off when using that parameter?

Our gym's number of state AA champions was wrong, it was too low. And there were more level 10s than they said--some did not compete at state which is where I think they got their number. And the count for compulsory gymnasts was also too low.

 

[l.c.o]

Woot-woot! LOL

 

[Jenn's Jam]

Our gym also made it, we were the top gym!

 

[wandrewsjr]

Our gym's number of state AA champions was wrong, it was too low. And there were more level 10s than they said--some did not compete at state which is where I think they got their number. And the count for compulsory gymnasts was also too low.

I do think their counts for each level are for those that competed at their state's state meet. AA winners, as stated in article is only for level 4 to 10, it's an easily verifiable number in these days of online meet results. Surprised they got that wrong.

 

[3rd_time_around]

I do think their counts for each level are for those that competed at their state's state meet. AA winners, as stated in article is only for level 4 to 10, it's an easily verifiable number in these days of online meet results. Surprised they got that wrong.

Yes, I know. I counted them from the state meet results at mymeetscores.com and they had the number wrong. They missed some AA winners for levels 4-10.

 

[txgymfan]

We've said on CB before and it's still true. The "best gym"is only the best if it is the best for your child / family. Rankings mean nothing if the gym does not fit you.

 

[coachmolly]

I'm intrigued by the methods use in acquiring all of this information. And why do some states have multiple gyms listed and some only one? Pennsylvania for example only has 1 gym listed while much smaller states have 2-3. Pennsylvania is a pretty big gymnastics state, and while Parkettes is probably the largest and most well established program, there are absolutely programs that are right up there with them in terms of number of level 9/10 kids and national qualifiers (Prestige, Xcel, Northstars, Silvia's). I'm not sure why none of those programs are even mentioned?

 

[Seeker]

The article says "all stats based on the 2016-2017 competitive season", so I assume they are using number of gymnasts at each level that actually competed that season(not number of gymnasts that a gym says they might have trainging at that level), probably using info from posted state and regional meet results. In my state those numbers corroborate pretty closely. Are they still off when using that parameter?

Still wrong. A basic check of mymeetscores shows different 2017 data than what is reported.

 

[profmom]

Never trust a ranking system that does not reveal its methodology.

The information is interesting and suggestive, but without knowing where they got their data, how reliable it is, and how they weighted it, it's hard to know for sure what to make of this. If anyone's in touch with them, I'd suggest including footnotes on the web page that provide sources of data, weighting mechanisms, and raw numbers, including overall Ns. The state champion number in particular is difficult to interpret without knowing how many gymnasts are competing in a state and how large the number of competitors in each age group. In my state alone, for instance, it was a much bigger deal five years ago to be a state champ than it is now, since they made age groups significantly smaller. I do like a lot, however, the fact that they included percentage of "native" gymnasts advancing into upper optionals.

Despite these criticisms, congratulations to the gyms that made the lists. Clearly they are doing some things right!

 

[Seeker]

I do think their counts for each level are for those that competed at their state's state meet. AA winners, as stated in article is only for level 4 to 10, it's an easily verifiable number in these days of online meet results. Surprised they got that wrong.

Using the State meet as the driver to determine number of gymnasts at a level really is not the best methodology, particularly for the upper levels. Without even looking, I can come up with a handful of L9's and 10's that did not compete at State due to injury, but petitioned to Regionals and several went on to qualify for Nationals. Our gym had more kids at Regionals than at State, so not sure how that was missed/left unreconciled before publishing.

 

[QueenBee]

I would also love to know how long each gym has been operating...there were enough gyms with super low %s of 'homegrown' talent that it made me wonder if many of those gyms were newly opened (in last 5-10 years) because then the lack of coming up from compulsories would made some sense, or if gyms with few gymnasts who came all the way up to 10 were gyms of longstanding who made the choice to concentrate more on optionals. Or if there would be another reason for the differential in gym results of bringing gymnasts to 10 all the way from compulsory.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

We've said on CB before and it's still true. The "best gym"is only the best if it is the best for your child / family. Rankings mean nothing if the gym does not fit you.

That's what I was thinking as I was scrolling through.

 

[suebee]

Never trust a ranking system that does not reveal its methodology.

The information is interesting and suggestive, but without knowing where they got their data, how reliable it is, and how they weighted it, it's hard to know for sure what to make of this. If anyone's in touch with them, I'd suggest including footnotes on the web page that provide sources of data, weighting mechanisms, and raw numbers, including overall Ns. The state champion number in particular is difficult to interpret without knowing how many gymnasts are competing in a state and how large the number of competitors in each age group. In my state alone, for instance, it was a much bigger deal five years ago to be a state champ than it is now, since they made age groups significantly smaller. I do like a lot, however, the fact that they included percentage of "native" gymnasts advancing into upper optionals.

Despite these criticisms, congratulations to the gyms that made the lists. Clearly they are doing some things right!

Agree with all of this.

In addition, I can imagine that if the "homegrown gymnast" data was obtained solely using mymeetscores, then this could also be incorrect. I know that at dd's gym, at least one kid left and later came back. Would that count as a homegrown gymnast if she competed for gym A as a compulsory, competed for gym B as an early optional, and then returned to gym A for levels 9 and 10?

Or if a kid scores out of levels 4 and 5, and those score out meets are not listed in mymeetscores, as small scoreout meets may not be, would she not counted as a "homegrown" gymnast?

 

[MILgymFAM]

That's what I was thinking as I was scrolling through.

I agree with you both. ODD actually went to a gym on this list and it was (of course) all wrong for her. Just completely an utterly wrong. This list is useful for a certain type of gymnast, but probably not the majority.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

I don't think any ranking is done, this article is simply giving a shout out to gyms that bring kids up to 10, and if that isn't significant they also use number of qualifiers and state champions. Some gyms have a lot of 10's but surprisingly only one or two actually through level 5 or old 6 and up. Also according to FB posts by them an elite tops hopes list is coming as well.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

# of gymnasts at a level (way, way low) which in turn impacts the percentages that follow.

But you made the list so that is significant. your team would not of been higher up because there is no ranking. I can't imagine the time invested in doing a project like this so my hat is off to Lauren for doing it. Someone send her some praise.

 

[thefellowsmom]

If this was about growing up gymnasts then I wonder why a gym would make the list with less than half their level 9s and none of their level 10s home grown. Also doesn't take into consideration how many kids leave a gym, which would be very telling.

I was happy to see that a smaller program made the list that is very successful with the small numbers they have.

 

[suebee]

I think what is confusing is that the author has selected these gyms as "top" JO gyms, without explaining what criteria she used to select them as "top" JO gyms. Did she list every gym that met certain criteria? Did she analyze data from every gym in the country (goodness!) If so, what were those criteria? I am personally curious as to whether reputation had anything to do with the selections as well, as one of the PP suggested.

People may be wondering why an unlisted gym was not included as a "top" gym, as at least one poster above has done.

Some explanation about what criteria she used to select "top" JO gyms, along with some explanation about her methodology (data collection and data analysis, because as some have already noted, there are some errors), would have been nice.