Why not make the age 12? Why not have something to look up to when you get older? 12 year olds don't go to the prom or play on high school sports teams.
Why give them the "world" so young?

We've heard no news yet from USASF, so I can only imagine that someone is in fact trying to push though these “after-the-fact” rule changes (age floor, no crossovers) for this season. Hopefully they/them are listening to all of the backlash the very idea of “after-the-fact” rule changes for this current season is causing.

If USA and NCA want to add new rules to their own competitions, that is their business.............but when they try to use their influence within USASF as a way to shove their rules down everyone else's throat, now there's a problem. It's even MORE of a problem when they try to slide it in AFTER 2006-07 rules had been finalized & published, and everyone had already begun the season. It's just a "slimy" way to operate and feels so corrupt. These few people's actions within USASF are tainting USASF, and negating all the hard work USASF has done to create and independent governing board trying to "unite" and bring "credibility" to our industry. I'm not referring to rules changes when I say this. What I'm referring to is these few peoples' belief that they have the power to wield their influence over USASF to get these rule changes implemented, AFTER the season had already begun & AFTER most of the other USASF Tier 1 members had voiced their opinions that it was too late to change rules this season. These few are attempting to do this simply to better their own business needs, without regard to how it affects thousands of others.

From the different USASF [Tier 1] member competition company execs I've spoken with yesterday, ALL thought this possible rule change was dead for 2006-07 and would be revisited for the 2007-08 season. So who that leaves that must be behind pushing for these after-the-fact rule changes.......are the Varsity Brand execs.

Below is my e-mail conversation with Jim Thorp (President of American Championships) regarding this. I'm sure it will just cause more people to hate me, but.........
# 1 - it's the truth
# 2 - it's about time someone actually stood up and said what ALL us [knowledgeable] gym owners have been thinking for a while, but were too afraid to say.

==================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Shawn Herrera
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 9:18 AM
To: 'Jim Thorp'
Subject: RE: "After-the-fact" rule changes for 2006-07

This situation is where USASF will show if they are in fact a "puppet organization" of Varsity Brands, or if they are truly an independent governing board.

For some reason USA/UCA have stuck in their heads that Worlds is only good if you're over the age of 12yr. So Worlds would be better off if it were illegal for Kiara to be on a team there. I've heard all to stupid non-sensicle reasons (little kids can't be around Sr kids because they might be talking about sex and boys, blah, blah, blah) for this, but has ANYONE been able to make an actual logical argument as to WHY there should be a age minimum for Worlds? To date I have not heard ANYONE put forth a valid, logical argument. Shouldn't it just be the best 18yr & younger talent in the country?

Also, they're on a kick about no crossovers. Again, can ANYONE make a logical argument as to WHY/HOW not allowing crossovers will help the industry? If I have our 16 yr old boys on our Small Coed team, who would also like to be on our Int'l Open Coed and try to make it to Worlds twice, why this is so harmful to anyone? Again, shouldn't "allstar" just be whoever can put together the best talent in the country?

USASF really needs to be overhauled and made more accountable to the groups they govern (competition companies & allstar gyms). And those with too much power/influence right now (Varsity Brand execs) might need to be removed, so the USASF can become what everyone hopes it will.......................instead of becoming what everyone now fears it is.

Thanks,

Shawn Herrera


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Thorp
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 5:49 AM
To: Shawn Herrera
Subject: RE: "After-the-fact" rule changes for 2006-07

Hey Shawn,

I was at a meeting on the Tuesday after Worlds where it was brought up that this change needed to be made. Mike Burgess stood up and said we can recommend it to our customers as we know it will probably be a change for the following year, but we cannot mandate it for this year because we have set the rules and divisions, etc. In spite of this, it began to gain some momentum. I pointed out that all the rules had been finalized and distributed, teams had been chosen based upon those rules and that event providers had already printed material, etc--I honestly thought I had killed this initiative for this year.

Then a week later I got an email asking for my opinion on the idea of making the change this year---here was my reply:

FOR THE SAME REASONS THAT MIKE BURGESS BROUGHT UP IN THE MEETING, I BELIEVE THIS SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR...I WOULD ESTIMATE THAT 70-80% OF ALL ALL-STAR PROGRAMS IN THE COUNTRY HAVE ALREADY COMPLETED TRYOUTS AND CHOSEN THEIR TEAMS BASED ON THE PARAMETERS THAT WE GAVE THEM. IN ADDITION, MOST EVENT PRODUCERS HAVE ALREADY PRINTED THEIR BROCHURES FOR THE FOLLOWING SEASON WITH THE PARAMETERS GIVEN US BY THE USASF. I BELIEVE TO CHANGE NOW MAKES US LOOK BAD AS A COOPERATIVE GROUP AND PUTS AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP ON ALL THOSE HAVE ALREADY ACTED IN GOOD FAITH BASED ON THE INFORMATION THEY WERE GIVEN EARLIER.

Shawn...we (event producers) have yet to be informed of this decision if it has indeed been made--I am not sure what our response will be, but I know I will be as frustrated as you are as our materials are printed and will go in the mail any day now.

I will forward your letter to those who are responsible for such things and hopefully it will make a difference....

Sincerely,

Jim

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the age rule applies to teams going to Worlds. With the exception of a few National comps, i.e., UCA and USA, the age as stated still applies. Sol, I would guess that if a team is going to Worlds, then changes would need to be made regarding the members that don't meet the age limit. And considering the additions/deletions that were made to several teams at the Worlds last year, it shouldn't be such a huge issue. Worlds is months away, I bet that any team the is good enough to get a bid can deal with this type of change. Why the panic.

You're all dumbasses, the rules aren't changing, are you to stupid to not read that he went straight to the source??

If you read the post, no decision has been made yet one way of the other; at least that we know of, but it appears to be one that is being considered and Cheerforce has reason to worry if it doesn't go their way due to the age of their star performer. I don't know that the board will factor that in when making their decision though.

to hmmm wrote:

---

Ok what about the gyms that are good enough to be at worlds but don't have the senior aged kids to go there.

---

There are many teams "ready" to go to worlds, its just simple, wait until you do fit the requirments.

Cheerleading Fan wrote:

---

I think a logical answer is to LEVEL the playing field. Seriously, the trend with putting these little kids on older teams is getting out of hand. We should start putting elementary kids on varsity football teams. Senior teams have been competing WITHOUT the 10 year olds up until the last couple of years, so whats the deal now. If you watch Top Gun from 1998, they had mainly all h.s. kids on their team. Same with Cheer Athletics, Champion Outlaws and other programs. Yes its great that individuals are talented. Why NOT have them on an advanced Junior prep program. To me, its like coaches think they are to good to compete in those divisions. Finally some type of regulation is good.

---

There are not very many programs that have the advantage of having multiple junior-prep or even junior age performers that are level 5. Most gyms have a few, sure. But enough to make an entire team that will stand up to level 5, not really. This is because those skills tend to take years to develop, unless the child is extremely naturally talented, like Kiara.

Is it fair to punish these few kids who are truly good enough to compete senior level 5? It's not like there is a junior level 5 division at Worlds to placate them.

That rule is being created because there is going to be a Junior Worlds. That is why everything is trying to be regulated. Here is the link for Junior Worlds

http://www.usasf.net/frmDefault.aspx?cn=boardandcommittees.htm#Junior_Worlds_(Ad_Hoc_Committee)_

I can see both sides of the issue. To be honest a decision needs to be made one way or the other. My concern is however the way that one young athletes name is thrown around. I fond it VERY unprofessional that a gym owner would :

#1 - cut and paste a e-mail and post on a public message boards. There are ways around it. You can state, in an e-mail I recieved, bla, bla, bla. If I ever had to work with you, I would never send you an e-mail again.

#2- You posted an e-mail using the name of the athlete that you are so worried about. If I was a parent in your gym, I would be very concerned about you unprofessionalism. Do not use individual children in your attempt to get your way.

The ruling (either way it goes) is about the industry, not one individual. Believe me, I am at a gym where we will lose 3 talented indivudiual as well, but I would never post their names to get my way.