This is the final piece of a 5 part series on increasing competition in All*Star Cheerleading. This one will focus on my recommendations and suggestions that were sent to the USASF as part of the Rules Process for 2013-15 seasons.

Move Coed Divisions on the Age Grid

My first suggestion is to move Coed divisions from the top of the Age Grid and list them in the When to Split Divisions section similar to how Small and Large splits are listed. This would make it so every Junior Level 3 team is competing against each other, regardless of large, small, coed, or all girl, until there are enough Junior Level 3 teams to warrant splitting Junior Level 3.

I intentionally avoided stating how many teams should remain on each side of a split in the official suggestion to avoid clouding the issue with a specific number, but I think it should be raised to 5.

Move Coed Divisions on the Age Grid

Remove Size Based Division Splits in Favor of a Single Team Size

My second suggestion is to remove Small, Medium, and Large divisions in favor of a single division size. Once again I intentionally did not state what size teams should be in the official suggestion to avoid clouding the issue of if there should be a single division size with what size it should be. If it were up to me I would go with 24, but I’ve heard some decent logic behind using 25 instead.

Remove Size Based Division Splits in Favor of a Single Team Size

Increasing Competition Series

• Part 1 – Introduction
• Part 2 – Ages & Levels
• Part 3 – Small, Medium, & Large
• Part 4 – All Girl & Coed

This is Part 4 on our series on Increasing Competition in All*Star Cheerleading. This one focuses on the All Girl & Coed options for All*Stars. There are several questions asked and none answered, but it raises the questions we need to think about as we head towards rules changes for the next couple of year.

What is the best way to split Coed and All Girl teams? Right now younger divisions, Tiny, Mini, and Youth, don’t split, while Junior and Senior divisions do. Junior and most of Senior have a simple All Girl and Coed split, while Senior Level 5 has All Girl divisions along with Small, Medium, and Large Coed divisions based on the overall team size and the maximum number of males allowed. Is this fair?

At what point should All Girl teams not be put in divisions against Coed teams in the name of fairness? How much impact do guys really have on a routine? Does it vary by age group or level? What have the major scoring systems done to account for this? Have they done enough? What else do you suggest they do?

What can be done regarding All Girl and Coed divisions to increase competition? Should Coed divisions be added to Tiny, Mini, and Youth ages? Should Junior and all Senior divisions have Small, Medium, and Large Coed options? At what point does the desire for competition outweigh the desire for fairness?

Spirit Post Increasing Competition Series:

• Part 1 – Introduction (Published January 1st)
• Part 2 – Ages & Levels (Published February 1st)
• Part 3 – Small, Medium & Large (Published on March 1st)
• Part 5, Recommendations, will be published on May 1st.

This is Part 3 on our series on Increasing Competition in All*Star Cheerleading. This one focuses on the sized based division splits for All*Stars.

At what point is it no longer “fair” for teams of different sizes to compete against each other? I’ll assume the majority believes a team of 20 should not go against a team of 32 (Ratio of 1.6) because of the way we currently split large and small for most divisions. How about a ratio of 1.4 (20 against 28 or 10 against 14)? Is the impact different when talking about larger teams, 20 going against 28, versus smaller teams, 10 against 14? How about a ratio of 1.2, 20 v. 24 or 10 v. 12?

Have the major scoring systems been adjusted to compensate for differences in team size? What are the current shortcomings that need to be addressed and adjusted to make it more fair?

When talking to coaches they often point out the advantages the other side has. Coaches of small teams point out larger teams have it easier in pyramids and getting the “Wow” factor. Coaches of large teams point out smaller teams have an advantage because it’s easier to have good synchronization and they get fewer deductions. Did we miss any? Do these (dis)advantages balance out? If not, how far off are they?

Let’s say there were 2 other teams the same age and level as you. Would you want all 3 to compete against each other regardless of size? What if you were the smallest team? What if you were the largest team? Does the size of each team factor into your decision?

Let’s say there is 1 other team of the same age and level. Would you rather compete against them regardless of team sizes or is it more important to keep a team competing against similar sized teams only?

Spirit Post Increasing Competition Series:

• Part 1 – Introduction (Published January 1st)
• Part 2 – Ages & Levels (Published February 1st)
• Part 4 on All Girl & Coed splits will be published on April 1st.

This is Part 2 on our series on Increasing Competition in All*Star Cheerleading. This one focuses on the Age and Level options for All*Stars. There are currently 23 combinations for Levels 1-5:

• Tiny (5 & Under) – Level 1
• Mini (8 & Under) – Levels 1, 2, & 3
• Youth (11 & Under) – Levels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5R, & 5
• Junior (14 & Under) – Levels 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5
• Senior (18 & Under or 12-18) – Levels 1, 2, 3, 4, 4.2, 5R, & 5
• International (14 & Older) – Level 5

These lists do not take into account Sized or Coed based divisions splits. Here is the same information listed by Level:

• Level 1 – 5 (Tiny, Mini, Youth, Junior, Senior)
• Level 2 – 4 (Mini, Youth, Junior, Senior)
• Level 3 – 4 (Mini, Youth, Junior, Senior)
• Level 4 – 3 (Youth, Junior, Senior)
• Level 4.2 – 1 (Senior)
• Level 5R – 2 (Youth, Senior)
• Level 5 – 4 (Youth, Junior, Senior, International)

Ages

Age has 6 options. Some options, specifically Tiny and International, are limited in Levels, while Senior has 7 Level options. Here’s a breakdown of the percentage of routines performed at each Age based on the statistics we kept from the 2010-11 season.

• Tiny – 3.71% of Routines (587/15827)
• Mini – 10.57% (1673/15827)
• Youth – 18.63% (2949/15827)
• Junior – 23.42% (3706/15827)
• Senior – 38.45% (6085/15827)
• Senior Open/Restricted – 2.54% (402/15827)
• International Open – 2.20% (348/15827)
• Special Needs – 0.49% (77/15827)

I’ve heard a few, but not many, calls to remove an Age group. I’ve heard many more people say the Ages are fine and there shouldn’t be too wide of a range of ages on the same team. I haven’t heard anyone say an age group should be added. What do you think? Do an Age need to be added or removed, or do we have it right?

Levels

There are currently at least 6 competitive levels. Here’s a breakdown of the percentage of routines performed at each level based on the statistics we kept from the 2010-11 season.

• Level 1 – 22.41% of Performances (3547/15827)
• Level 2 – 28.45% (4502/15827)
• Level 3 – 21.85% (3458/15827)
• Level 4 – 11.83% (1872/15827)
• Level 4.2 – 2.34% (370/15827)
• Level 5 – 11.94% (1890/15827, includes Restricted/Open)
• Level 6 – 0.70% (111/15827)
• Special Needs – 0.49% (77/15827)

I’ve heard many people say more levels are needed because there isn’t a level for every major progression. I’ve also heard people say the opposite, there are too many levels and there should be a couple major progressions between each level. What are your thoughts?

Overall, is this the right mix of Ages and Levels? If you had to add an Age or Level what would you make the grid look like? How about if you had to remove one, what would your new grid look like? Does the existing combinations of Ages and Levels promote the amount of competition you would like to see? Thoughts?

Spirit Post Increasing Competition Series:

• Part 1 – Introduction (Published January 1st)
• Part 3 on Sized based splits (Small, Medium, Large) will be published on March 1st.

This is the first part of a series about increasing the average number of teams in a division at each event. This part re-introduces the idea that the average number of teams in a division is too low and provides statistical support for that idea. The next 3 parts will look at factors we have some influence over and the 5th and final part will outline the recommendations I’ll be sending to the USASF as proposals for the next rules change cycle.

Last season I kept stats on over 200 events in an attempt to get statistical information about the average number of teams in a division and the average number of teams at each event. Once the season got going, I selected 10 events per weekend, 5 being events produced by Cheersport, Jammy, or Varsity and 5 being events produced by other companies. In a minor attempt to steer the averages higher I selected all of the Worlds Bids events that put results online within a week of the event, and when choosing which events I went with what appeared to be the larger event. My goal in doing this was to make the statistics a best case scenario, assuming even the best case wouldn’t be as good as many of us would like it to be. Here’s a quick summary of the stats:

Average Division Size

• Overall – 3.25 Teams per Division
• Worlds Qualifiers – 4.65 Teams per Division
• Non Qualifiers – 2.71 Teams per Division

Average Event Size

• Overall – 70.34 Teams per Event
• Worlds Qualifiers – 182.79 Teams per Event
• Non Qualifiers – 50.17 Teams per Event

(Full Statistics on Google Docs)

My feeling is the average division size is not high enough and as an industry we need to take steps to increase it. I wouldn’t want to attend a baseball, volleyball, basketball, or soccer tournament in which my team was only competing against 4 other teams, but that’s above the norm for cheerleading competitions. I’d like to see a norm of 8 or higher, but only 1 event met that last season, Cheersport Nationals with an average of 9.02 teams per division. In fact, less than 10% of the events tracked had an average of 4 teams per division or higher, and only 10 events averaged 5 or more teams per division.

The average is what it is due to factors we have little control over, including the number of gyms/teams in existence and the number of events each season, and factors we have some influence over, such as the number of divisions offered. Over the next 3 parts of this series I’m going to discuss the factors we have influence over.

If you have any thoughts concerning this topic or suggestions regarding increasing the average please let me know.