WAG Why Top 3?

[cbifoja]

As I was reading more (I swear I could lose a week of my life bouncing around the internet without even realizing it), I came across this snippet from a state's board meeting minutes. What do you all think about this proposal to counter the "sand bagging" claims that often get attached to clubs who have girls who successfully win at a level repeat that same level?

Any athlete, levels 4 to 7, that scores 37.00 points or higher All Around in the previous years State Championships, will not be eligible to participate in any team scores for the current season, if she is repeating the level. This rule will apply at all Prelims, Invitational's, Sectionals and State Championships.

The minutes also discussed but I think ultimately dismissed the idea of having a novice versus an open/experienced division that I believe has been brought up before on CB when the subject of sand bagging came up.

 

[txgal]

We have always split the gyms into large team and small team. Large team is 5 or more girls, small team is less than 5 girls. This is somewhat unfair as in our city there are what we colloquially refer to as 'gymnastics factories' who will usually win first place in the large team because they will often bring 20+ girls to any given meet. Each team (large and small) will then calculate using the top 3-4 scores on each event; splitting them evens the playing field a bit (except for the factories noted above) because the smaller teams are not in a position of having to count every score.

 

[gymdog]

That rule about not counting for team score would have fascinating results on my state. So, I'm sure there are some people who would make sure it wouldn't happen. I'm fine with it . We rarely repeat compulsories and if we do the kid would be well below 37.

 

[profmom]

Maybe it is just me, and G-d knows I've done enough bragging about my son's team this year, but I think that, except for encouraging commitment to the team itself, we should care a lot less about compulsory team awards. DS's team's experience this year has been interesting to me, but in general the boys' side has given me a different perspective on team awards because there are different ways that gyms get boys from compulsories to optionals, and some involve repeating levels even when the kids are really good.

For DS's team, some would call it sandbagging -- the team was about half repeaters, some of whom definitely could have moved up. They won the state team award in part by topping a gym that is notorious for keeping boys back at L5 for years until they move them up to L8. DS and his teammates went into every meet with the goal of coming in first, and it definitely gave them all a little extra motivation to get that stick or add that bonus. Their coach made it a fun challenge for them. However, I think the parents who've been around for a while all did a decent job of keeping it in perspective, letting the guys enjoy it but not thinking that there's that much at stake in winning the level 5 Olympics. It will be very interesting to see if they can do as well next year, when the L6 team will be almost all first-year L6s, but again, there is nothing at stake in winning the L6 Olympics.

The gym that keeps the guys back has its walls plastered with L4 and L5 team banners from states, but not with L9 and L10 banners. DS and his team understand a little bit (and the parents understand more) that what happens at meets at L9 and L10 is what matters, and when all of the gymnasts in the state get to optionals, there's no sandbagging or playing games with levels any more. It's go out there and compete the best skills that you can as cleanly as you can and hope like heck it's enough. On the girls' side, the L10 team is pretty young, so this is not the year for banners for them. But in a few years, they should be winning a lot of them, and that will be really meaningful!

 

[gracyomalley]

Both of the teams my kids are on are relatively small - our L4 team this year has 16 girls competing and to us that's HUGE! Some years our teams place, but rarely in top 3 at state. Always have girls placing at each level, again, rarely champion. Good record of getting girls to level 9/10, a couple to college D1.

I would absolutely hate to see all scores averaged for team scores. The last thing a kid struggling on an event needs is the idea that they are going to hurt their team! Top 3 works fine for us - placement is a great plus but not expected.

I have to say that now that my kids are L6-8 (boys/girl), I have learned to be more "forgiving" to the apparent "sandbaggers". I admit that it drove me crazy when DD first started! However, my 2 older kids both "repeated" this season (can I call it last season now)....both with respectable scores and placements at states the first time through, but both with a few weaker skills, and more importantly for DD with tons of mental stuff to work through - coach gave her option of L8 or repeat L7 - but worried that any push might lead to her quitting and really is more focused on getting her to 10 strong and confident - if it takes 3 years or 5 is less important. The 2 girls who beat her at state were also repeaters - and stronger than her last year - but one clearly has fear stuff on one event, and one like DD is super clean but I'll bet there were good reasons! DS coach (gone now) was a bit spotty this last year or so and kept all the boys back...kids had nothing to say in the matter - but it did allow him to get "evenly" strong on all 6 events.

In fact, of the girls who competed L7 10 and under last state, more than 60% repeated with DD - from many different teams, and with some solid 35+ scores. I do think its different in the very low levels, but none of my kids competed those. As I tell my kids, everyone has their own story, and until you know it, don't make a judgement...

 

[profmom]

Agreed 1000%, Gracy. If staying an extra year in level is what it takes to help a kid work through a fear issue or recover fully from an injury, it may not be at all apparent from the scores that this is what's happening. But the repeated year may be what keeps the child in the sport for the long run.

 

[cbifoja]

I don't consider keeping a few kids back each year to be sand bagging. But when you have a stated policy that each kid is expected to do two years regardless of score...well I don't know what else to call it.

 

[gwenmom]

I don't consider keeping a few kids back each year to be sand bagging. But when you have a stated policy that each kid is expected to do two years regardless of score...well I don't know what else to call it.

I've given up on our girls ever doing well in team awards. Almost every meet they compete against another team that is almost three times our size at DD level. According to rumor, this team requires 3 38s AA before they allow girls to go up a level. They have some girls that are 3rd year Level 3.

I am acquainted with one mom of that team and I'm always tempted when I run into her at the grocery store to ask if the rumor is true.

 

[gymgal]

I've given up on our girls ever doing well in team awards. Almost every meet they compete against another team that is almost three times our size at DD level. According to rumor, this team requires 3 38s AA before they allow girls to go up a level. They have some girls that are 3rd year Level 3.

I am acquainted with one mom of that team and I'm always tempted when I run into her at the grocery store to ask if the rumor is true.

if the scores are online, it wouldn't be too difficult to find out.

 

[gwenmom]

if the scores are online, it wouldn't be too difficult to find out.

True but I honestly only care how DD and her little friends are doing and while team awards are great I have enough drama at the gym somedays without feeding this particular subject

 

[Deleted member 14190]

That rule about not counting for team score would have fascinating results on my state. So, I'm sure there are some people who would make sure it wouldn't happen. I'm fine with it . We rarely repeat compulsories and if we do the kid would be well below 37.

==
You would think it would, but,,,, it doesn't. Several teams just held kids back an extra year prior to competing and then hold them back again in 5, .. A better solution that would be fair for all, would be to allow kids to contribute towards team for a maximum of 3 seasons, (doesn't matter which level). In other words, if you want to field a level 5 team you need to move them to 5 by the third season (and you cannot sit out a season, 3 years from the first season). Or if you desire to repeat in the lower levels, that is fine but those kids will not count towards state in level 5 because it will most likely be the 4th year.. In addition Level 7 team scores only count for first 5 years, (which is PLENTY, but will eliminate the urge to repeat in 7). Problem solved, and now building a team becomes a bit more strategic and creates a better flow...
Here is my beef with the 37 rule. Currently the 37 rule only penalizes a kid for having a great state meet in the previous season, not to mention that a 7 year old who scores a 37 at state in level 4 this year, just may not be able to get that flyaway to go 5 next season,,,, so consequently she gets penalized by not being able to count on team and branded as a repeater. Sorry but the little ones should not be penalized for doing well. But they do and are.... It's sad,,,

 

[Deleted member D3987]

nothing to add, but it is convention and has been this way since the 60's.

 

[Muddlethru]

==
You would think it would, but,,,, it doesn't. Several teams just held kids back an extra year prior to competing and then hold them back again in 5, .. A better solution that would be fair for all, would be to allow kids to contribute towards team for a maximum of 3 seasons, (doesn't matter which level). In other words, if you want to field a level 5 team you need to move them to 5 by the third season (and you cannot sit out a season, 3 years from the first season). Or if you desire to repeat in the lower levels, that is fine but those kids will not count towards state in level 5 because it will most likely be the 4th year.. In addition Level 7 team scores only count for first 5 years, (which is PLENTY, but will eliminate the urge to repeat in 7). Problem solved, and now building a team becomes a bit more strategic and creates a better flow...
Here is my beef with the 37 rule. Currently the 37 rule only penalizes a kid for having a great state meet in the previous season, not to mention that a 7 year old who scores a 37 at state in level 4 this year, just may not be able to get that flyaway to go 5 next season,,,, so consequently she gets penalized by not being able to count on team and branded as a repeater. Sorry but the little ones should not be penalized for doing well. But they do and are.... It's sad,,,

I agree with this. It is also not uncommon to be lucky and have one great meet and not be able to do it again. Then again there are still those athletes who certainly consistently do well. I'm not a big supporter of penalizing individuals who do well, make more money etc., in the name of "equality".

 

[MaryA]

I guess I always assumed that basing the team score on the top 3 scores on each apparatus came from more of the high school/college model of gymnastics where only a handful of gymnasts were selected to compete on each event and then that just remained the "rule" even though, in club gymnastics, every girl on the team usually competes AA. In HS/college gym it is definitely more of a team sport. Club gym is more of an individual sport and the team aspect sometimes seems to be almost an afterthought.

 

[3rd_time_around]

We have always split the gyms into large team and small team. Large team is 5 or more girls, small team is less than 5 girls. This is somewhat unfair as in our city there are what we colloquially refer to as 'gymnastics factories' who will usually win first place in the large team because they will often bring 20+ girls to any given meet. Each team (large and small) will then calculate using the top 3-4 scores on each event; splitting them evens the playing field a bit (except for the factories noted above) because the smaller teams are not in a position of having to count every score.

What if there is only 1 team with more than 5 girls? Like in our state for level 10.

 

[Sasha]

Interesting topic. It seems like an alternative approach would be something like counting, say, the top 50% of all scores (rounded down for odd-numbered teams), with a minimum of 3 scores. So a 3-girl team would use all 3, a 7-girl team would also use top 3, but a 20-girl team would factor in the top 10 girls from that team. That way there is space at the bottom for the girls who had a bad day without penalty, but a medium/big team with more talent to pull from can't sandbag so easily if that was the goal.

I guess there are always ways to game the system, but the top-3-regardless-of-size does seem to be less than optimal. All things being equal (though they are rarely equal), bigger teams are more likely to have more talent at both the top and bottom, simply because the more girls you have walk through the door and train, the more likely you are to get some stars, as well as some trailing in the scores. Pulling only from the very top does seem to favor bigger teams, other factors (and there are many) aside.

I'm sure I'm not considering some obvious flaw in this scenario as I type it, though...

 

[Muddlethru]

What if there is only 1 team with more than 5 girls? Like in our state for level 10.

At the meets we've attended, they would "win" or get the team title. At our previous gym, they only have 1 L10 and she went to a lot of meets where she was the only L10. She came home with all event titles and the all around. It looks good on her "resume" and it is also listed in her meet bio that she won all those titles. People who would look at say meetscores.com would see her placement and think wow she keeps getting first. Unfortunately, they never look closer to see how may girls she beat.

 

[gracyomalley]

I'm thinking, in the long run, none of this will matter when it comes to college aps....