Who REALLY has the power in USASF??

Date: Wed Feb 1 1:12 PM, 2006

RE: Who REALLY has the power in USASF??

Date: Wed Feb 1 1:55 PM, 2006

i wish i was a CEO of a huge company i would love for everyone on this message board to purchace stock in my company lol think ENRON.

The sucky part is since other gym owners and coaches are judges at comp. people are so scared to speak up. cause they think well if i make that guy mad he will give me a bad score. There is alot of shadyness that goes on behind the scenes that parents dont see cause since this is a business they want you to fell like everything is great.

The thing that gym owners are scared about is like what used to happen in the old days with uca. If you didnt go to a UCA camp in the summer or wear UCA uniforms you were looked down upon and chance you didnt win cause of it.
im sorry to say but speaking to alot of gym owners lately the USASF wont be around much longer.

oh and parents when they ask you for another $30 to pay for the usasf child membership fee. ask them what you get cause the answer is nothing. you just get to help pay for the debt jeff web is in. And the reason that he is in varitys office is cause they are helping to pay to start it up. think people think . this is why the rich get richer and the middle class stay put.

Cause i paid 500 dollars to have my gym registered and got nothing for it. not a phone call say thank you, not a pen that said you got worked for your $500 nothing.

Elaine sold out lets think victor rosario he was head of coaches congress with elaine why isnt he on the board. One i think Jeff was scared he couldn't over power victor like he does everyone else. jeff is a powerful man in this sport. and two victor didnt have cheer and dance job so they couldnt buy him out.

people look outside the box this isnt a perfect world. and parents look out for some extra fees and ask what do i get for these fees.

Date: Wed Feb 1 2:58 PM, 2006

I can tell you what I got for my $500 USASF membership fee. I got some USASF stickers to put on our window & the "privilege" to buy our Gym's insurance policy through USASF.

Here's the thing with the USASF insurance. At first glance, I thought "great, a policy tailored to my Gym. I bet there's something I wouldn’t be able to get my current insurance carrier to do". So what did I do?.............I paid my $500 membership, then paid for the USASF insurance, and let my old policy lapse.

Just for some background info.........my old insurance carrier (before the USASF policy) was NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. I was happy, my insurance broker had done their research for me and found this to be the best policy fit for our needs.

But when I saw that USASF would be offering insurance, I fell for all the hype about how great everything will be and how USASF will allow us Gym owners TO GET THINGS WE COULDN'T GET ON OUR OWN.

So I sign up for the USASF policy and pay my money. The USASF policy was MORE EXPENSIVE than my old NATIONWIDE MUTUAL policy, but I figured, "hey, it will be worth it since it's a policy tailor-made for cheer gyms"

A few weeks later my insurance packet came. When I looked at the actual USASF policy to see who the "underwriting carrier" was, would anyone like to guess what I saw?.............................you guessed it, NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

I cancelled my old NATIONWIDE MUTUAL policy, paid USASF $500 membership so I could buy "their" insurance, PAID MORE for their policy........then when the paperwork finally arrives in the mail, it's through the same company I already had, but now for a higher premium.

I think THIS is the exact kind of thing MATH CONFUSED is talking about in his/her posts about 1 group having so much power. Am I right MATH CONFUSED?

Date: Wed Feb 1 3:31 PM, 2006

I don't get it...what kind of gun is USASF holding to your heads that is forcing all of you to go with USASF and any companies associated with them?

Date: Wed Feb 1 4:26 PM, 2006

No one is holding a gun we all did this in the start of this whole nothing and this is what we all got. screwed. trust me we will not do it again we are just saying for others not to do it and have to go through what we did.

We are all showing what is going on....there are alot of comp. companies and gym owners that will not be doing this again.

To respond to the person that said start your own company then. i wish i could but i dont have $500,000 to start my own and either did jeff web this is why varsity is helping him out.

This is why i am just trying to open some people eyes......

What they are trying to do is get rid of some of the comp. companies that are takeing away from varsitys profits. It used to be 3 or 4 major companies spliting the profits of all these gyms. Now there are 100's of companies that are new and takeing away from varsitys profits. they figure if we can over power everyone we can take over and make all the money.

It is $10,000 for a comp. company to join usasf and 25,000 per each bid. What this does is cut all the smaller up in comeing companies out by them not wanting to pay $35,000.

It also gives USA a dieing out company owned by varsity 3 paid bids which they didnt earn the same way everyother company had to earn there bids....A chance at life again because now people are going to USA which they wouldnt have before just to get an easy bid.

trust me we are working on makeing USASF go bye bye.....
you will see soon

Date: Wed Feb 1 4:30 PM, 2006

Congrats on paying the $500 dollars to get a sticker lol

the parents will understand when they have to pay 50 extra dollars for there kid to be a usasf member or they will not be allowed to compette....parents might get a sticker too lol cause there not getting anything else for this $50 lol hey parents if you guys just like throwing money away ill set up an account and you can send me $50 and ill send you a sticker lol heck ill do better instead of usasf send ing you a sticker ill send you 2 lol ....

wake up

Date: Wed Feb 1 7:51 PM, 2006

another gym owner wrote:

What they are trying to do is get rid of some of the comp. companies that are takeing away from varsitys profits. It used to be 3 or 4 major companies spliting the profits of all these gyms. Now there are 100's of companies that are new and takeing away from varsitys profits. they figure if we can over power everyone we can take over and make all the money.

But really, if you count the number of teams in a competition, and then count the number that would actually have a chance to qualify for a bid, that number is miniscule compared to the number of teams competing.

USASF is so much more than just the "world's" competition. After all, aren't you tired of seeing kids perform skills with technique so bad that you worry for the safety of the kids performing them? Wouldn't it be nice if that girl from Fremont could still walk if her coach knew how to teach the correct technique? USASF is trying to regulate the cheerleading industry, World's is just a small part of it.

Date: Wed Feb 1 9:47 PM, 2006

Can ANYONE who is defending USASF please please please answer the question that has been stated three times now, it might help. In case you need the question again -- why is USA allowed to award three bids?? What is the justification, and/or what have they done to earn that privilege? Simple question. Can someone on the board respond? The longer this basic question is avoided, the more suspicious it all seems to those of us who are new to all of this.

Date: Thu Feb 2 12:14 AM, 2006

Answering The Question wrote:

Can ANYONE who is defending USASF please please please answer the question that has been stated three times now, it might help. In case you need the question again -- why is USA allowed to award three bids?? What is the justification, and/or what have they done to earn that privilege? Simple question. Can someone on the board respond? The longer this basic question is avoided, the more suspicious it all seems to those of us who are new to all of this.

First of all, why is there so much complaint with the USASF/NACCC. It is FANTASTIC that an organization is in place to promote a rule making body that implements similar rules at all competitions, certifies coaches and cheerleaders, and provides a source of information to all star Gyms. I think all of that is POSITIVE and a great direction for All-Star cheerleading.

I am not sure why USA gives out 3 bids, but why is there a huge issue about USA. If you look at the USA Nor-Cal Championship, the registration doesn't seem to shabby in comparison to the rest of the competitions in Northern California. USA is still one of the largest if not the largest national championship in California. The next best thing is the American Showcase, but its still a young competiton. The next would be Spirit Sports, but again the teams that go to both of those competitions are very incosistent. ACA gave out 2 paid bids with less teams at their nationals, so USA is in the right ball park giving out 3.

Date: Thu Feb 2 2:13 AM, 2006

See number one no one can defend it cause its the company trying to keep one of there comps alive.

I love this. listen to what just happened. Cheer Athletics large coed was just at a comp. and got a paid world bid. now say you were the second place team at the comp. and you find out cheer athletics cheated and had a guy that was to old. say your kid was on the second place team you would think yes we are now getting the paid bid. wrong they said we know you cheated and its unfair to the other kids on the team (cheer athletics)so we nt take the bid away wwe would still like you to represen us. now being the team in second i know as a coach i would be mad. and as a parent you would to. now if this happen to you, you would be mad but couldnt do a thing about it. lol so you can say all you want but im glad that second place team wasnt mine or yours.

and the rule says if you are found cheating you will not be able to go to worlds for 3 years . lets see theeem follow that. its cheer athletics though so they wont follow that rule. but if it was mine or your gym they would have hit us wit that rule.

wake up people what if this would have happened to you. and it just happen tis week

Date: Thu Feb 2 7:23 AM, 2006

I'm so sorry "Another Gym Owner" but can I ask you a question???? Are you really a gym owner??? There are no capitals, no correct sentances, grammar mistakes out the ying yang.... etc in that paragraph. Now mind you, I don't either agree nor do I disagree with you, but it's very very hard to give you credibility when you write like that. I'm sure mine isn't PERFECT, but sheesh.

This is NOT meant to be mean, rude, snotty, NOTHING. I am so trying to tell you what I see. I truly think you are about 15 years old and not a gym owner. If you truly are a gym owner, PLEASE don't do your newsletters!

If you want credibility, don't claim to be something. Because now it's tough to take what you say seriously.

Date: Thu Feb 2 7:34 AM, 2006

I am so glad that someone fowarded me what is going on these message boards. This topic is a very good one and everyone does need to give opinions and share their concerns. First it is very important that everone know that I am not a Varsity Rep. The confusion is that I did 5 years ago work for Cheerleader/Danz team as a representative. I worked from 1994 -1999 and found it necessary to leave because WORLD CUP became my major priority. The NACCC was a project that i hope everyone understands was a dream of mine to help better the industry. Our main goal was to solicit all of the companies to establish rules and guidelines for our safety. Many of the companies responded favorably. We had great meetings establishing a new unity that never existed before. They were present at our first NACCC meeting in Atlanta and we were on our way. We had wonderful representation from gyms large and small from all over the country. Everyone was asked if they thought that this was a good idea and they all supported our efforts. Following that meeting JAIME PARRISH VICTOR AND KRISTEN ROSARIO JOELLE ANTICO DENNIS WORLEY AMY TYLER AND KATHY PENREE AND I worked feverishly to help unify rules in a sport that we wanted to see more respected. We continued to spend our own money and whatever else came in from membership to promote NACCC. Our main goal was always to have everyone aboard including VARSITY NCA AND CHEERSPORT. They had important concerns .We respected what they were saying and continued to have open dialogue with them. We continued to strive toward our goal for everyone to be unified with the rules .....remember that was why the NACCC was established. When the USASF was formed the majority of companies decided that the federation was a better way for them to go so what were we do ???? How could we have a Congress voting on rules that no longer would be adopted by the companies that we compete with??? GYMS also made their decision to join the USASF and we were severly weakened. The merger was so necessary to keep the CONGRESS afloat. The inevitable happenned caused by the decision of the NATIONAL COMPANIES AND CHEER GYMS. The NACCC meeting in ATLANTA we feel was a big success . Kudos to all who attended to keep our voice heard. We remain to be a CONGRESS FOR THE COACHES BY THE COACHES. My postion on the Board of the USASF is an honor for me. Anyone who thinks that my opinions are compromised by anything else except for what is good for all of us in this growing industry truly does not know me. I respect the UASAF as the vehicle right now to help to increase the integrity of our sport. I once sat in my chair in my office at WORLD Cup hating this and not liking that, second guessing this and questioning that and then one day I said, "Let me try to be part of the solution and not the problem." Trust in the power of each and everyone of us and we can make a difference.

Date: Thu Feb 2 9:04 AM, 2006

Thanks Elaine for sharing that information and clearing some things up. The only part I'm still a little confused about is why was the USASF formed when you and others were doing such a great job with NACCC? You mentioned you wanted everyone on board, including Varsity, CheerSport and NCA, but yet they went off and formed something else. And then why did the majority of companies decide that USASF was a better way to go? It sounds to me like you had the perfect vision and you were on the right track. It would be great if you could clear that part up. Without hearing the explanation, it sounds kind of like a power thing with Varsity, which puts us back to the original post, right? Looking foward to more info, thanks!

Date: Thu Feb 2 9:40 AM, 2006

Oops, sorry, I just went back and read Morton's post which did explain why USASF was formed even though NACCC was around. Elaine, would that also be your explanation? Sounds like it was lack of money and lack of time (NACCC). Although I'm still wondering why the money and time wasn't put into NACCC by these organizations, rather than forming their own, you know? Why not just invest in NACCC.

Date: Thu Feb 2 9:58 AM, 2006

I seem to be back to my original "math problem" (which is where I got my name). I was unaware that ACA was able to give out 2 paid bids, until someone posted that on the messageboard. I just looked at the results from ACA nationals and only 61 teams were in attendance.

This isn't an "opinion" someone can argue with, just check for yourself. http://www.acanationals.com/pdf/AllStar_Day1and2.pdf

If the USASF "rule" is that you got offer 1 paid bid for every 100 teams you have in attendance, how was ACA able to offer 2 paid bids? So by my math, they should be allowed to award 6/10 of a paid bid. OK, let's give them a break and round up to 1 paid bid. But what "new math" gets them to two paid bids???

ANSWER (and this is from what Morton Bergue said in his post):
Lance Wagers is now President of ACA (Another Varsity Brand Company.) Lance Wagers in 1 of the 13 Board Members of USASF.

Someone try........JUST TRY.......to show how Lance did not get preferential treatment for his company. His ACA National competition had only 61 teams, but got to offer 2 paid bids.

If this kind of favoritism happened in the US Congress, would there not be a Congressional Inquiry for "ethics/conflict of interest violations"? I know the average Coach or Mom or Dad doesn't really care about this stuff, so that's NOT who I'm addressing this to...........

ATTENTION: GYM OWNERS & COMPETITION COMPANIES. You need to look and this and decide for yourself if you see a problem here. Are [some of] the USASF Board Members using the positions to get favorable decision for THEIR companies.......resulting in a financial benefit to them?

I'm not saying EVERYTHING USASF does is bad. There are some good things that come from it. So people that post "quasi-rebuttals" to my questions by saying "USASF does some good things" is not a response. When you want to rebuke someone's argument (why USA gets 3 paid bids, ACA get 2) you have to directly address THAT argument. You don't respond to the "USA 3 bid question" by saying "the USASF has good coaches certification, so don't question what they do".

Nor do you say to that other person posting, "what you say is invalid because your post had spelling errors". That is the WEAKEST argument I've ever heard. I don't care how that person spells (there's no "spell-check" on the messageboard, so I'll cut anyone some slack). What matters is the substance of the information.

SO HERE'S THE QUESTIONS TO RESPOND TO IF YOU WANT TO REBUKE ME:
1) How can USA offer 3 paid bids this year when they didn't have the required 300 teams?
2) How did ACA offer 2 paid bids when they only had 61 teams at their Nationals?
3) Did any of the 13 USASF Board Members use their power to get "their" companies preferential treatment?

PS
Elaine, you’re a great person. You are better than the USASF. You belong back with your dream (Coaches Congress). You had it right to begin with. With all that USASF has “unfairly” done favoring its own Varsity companies, I’m sure we could easily get other companies to abandon USASF and support [financially, if needed] the Coaches Congress for next season.

Date: Thu Feb 2 10:05 AM, 2006

Quick Question wrote:

Although I'm still wondering why the money and time wasn't put into NACCC by these organizations, rather than forming their own, you know? Why not just invest in NACCC.

GREAT QUESTION!!!!!!

Answer: Because Varsity wouldn't have been able to "control" the NACCC as they have controlled the USASF.

It's all about money. USASF has done some great things for the industry, but that doesn't mean that the NACCC wouldn't have had done those things anyway (if they had the financial support). Creation of the USASF was about Varsity making money. "Quick Question's" post/question hit the nail on the head. If the true goal was to help the industry, why not just support the NACCC? Keep asking questions like that and the answers will come.

Bravo "QUICK QUESTION" for thinking for yourself and not just blindly accepting what's given.

Date: Thu Feb 2 10:56 AM, 2006

I think Elaine's response was right on. I apologize if I made it seem that money and lack of support was the only reason the NACCC and USASF merged. I wasn't at the meetings between Elaine Pascal and Jim Chadwick, nor was I on the Executive Board for the NACCC. Thank you Elaine for your beautiful expalianation and clearing things up even for me. You are the BEST!

Date: Thu Feb 2 11:22 AM, 2006

It is hard to believe that a person could be so mean,rude,snotty, AND insensitive.
Do you know how hard it is for some people to write in a public forum due to their lack of grammer and spelling.

SHEESH I hope your not a parent !

Date: Thu Feb 2 11:29 AM, 2006

Math Confused,

I agree when you say people shouldn't respond to a direct question with a bunch on hoopla, mish, mash. I have been trying to find an answer to your "USA giving 3 bids question." Here is what I found:

This I got off the website:

Ø Tier 1 Championships will be protected for a 200 mile radius within a four week window, either side of the current Tier 1 nationals.
Exceptions:
Ø Member companies conducting Tier 1 or 2 Championships that fail to comply with the required number of all star team criteria for the Tier Level they will have one year to increase the number of all star teams back to the required level before having their Championship Tier reduced to the Level it justifies by the Tier Criteria.

This I got from Jim Chadwick and notes from a meeting:

The answer to the USA giving 3 bids in 2005 is: According to USA numbers from prelims the previous year, they had 240 all star teams. At finals, they had 156 teams. But it is total all star teams that compete, not finals numbers, that count, So, by the rules they can give 3 bids. This is 1 per 100 rounded up.

I would make an educated guess that your answer for “ACA giving 2 bids” will probably be the same.

As for question number 3 all I can say is what I said before. At the Board meetings there has never been any pressure or even discussion to favor a Varsity Brand company. Things are brought up in a non-biased manner and a procedure is followed to vote on it. I can only stand by my integrity and honor. My goal is to see the all-star community grow in a healthy and fun atmosphere for all those involved. I also want to see all my friends who own competition companies and cheer gyms succeed and prosper.

I hope this helps. I can really see there is a lot of controversy about the USASF. I would like to help all I can, but I do feel some of this, needs to be brought to the USASF directly and not on an anonymous message board. I don’t know how many USASF Board members or staff read this message board. PLEASE send your questions, suggestions and complaints to Jim Chadwick jchadwick@usasf.net directly. He works on this 24/7 and really needs to hear the complaints. Emailing Jim directly will assure all the Board members and staff sees what the gym owners and companies have to say. These problems cannot be solved by a bunch of us on a message board. I want to help, but I feel the best way to get things done is for all of us to get involved and help make change. Thanks.

Date: Thu Feb 2 11:48 AM, 2006

The amount of bids that a company is allowed to give is based on the numbers from the nationals from the previous year. 1 - 100 teams would equal 1 paid bid. 101 - 200 teams would equal 2 paid bids. 2001 - 300 teams would equal 3 paid bids and so on.

For ACA all I could find were their 2003 results on the web. Am I just not looking in the right place? Their bids to be given would have been on their 2004 Nationals.