Americas Best

Date: Wed Nov 15 6:40 PM, 2006

RE: Americas Best

Date: Wed Nov 15 6:44 PM, 2006

Yes, Clovis Coed attended Worlds in 2004. In 2005 and 2006 they received unpaid bids but did not attend.

Date: Wed Nov 15 9:27 PM, 2006

Worlds watcher who are you?
Any predictions for potential Cali bids or too early to tell?

Date: Thu Nov 16 7:18 AM, 2006

We can't wait for the weekend! It is going to be so much fun but a long long day!
Good Luck to ALL teams competing this weekend.

Date: Thu Nov 16 2:00 PM, 2006

Just have to add in there that Cheer Odyssey is one of UCF's favorite teams, you all were so supportive with the Sydney stuff. UCF will be cheering you all on for sure!!!

UCF

Date: Thu Nov 16 6:18 PM, 2006

who are you? wrote:

Worlds watcher who are you?
Any predictions for potential Cali bids or too early to tell?

It is too early to tell. Let everyone get out on the mat at least once, base the opinion on this years teams, not last year, and then people can start voicing their opinions. Which is all mine will be. Just one persons opinion, nothing else.

Date: Thu Nov 16 9:34 PM, 2006

Yes Cheer Odyssey is a great group of people that really care beyond cheer. Good luck to you all this year! You willo do well! Thanks for everything.

Date: Thu Nov 16 11:32 PM, 2006

cheer odyssey LOVES UCF. Having friends in the cheer world is awesome, PLUS i heard UCF is starting off with a great team and lots of talent. Good luck to you guys, WE will most definitely be cheering for u guys. GOOD luck to everyone, its our first comp so ahHhHhHh lets get the season in gear and work the floor out!

Date: Fri Nov 17 5:57 AM, 2006

Did anyone else notice that AB put large and small teams together. I don't know if I like that, the divsions are large enough to split up, especially in the all star section.

Date: Fri Nov 17 7:49 AM, 2006

One more day til we compete

Date: Fri Nov 17 8:14 AM, 2006

America's Best, Jamz, and many others (does GSSA?) will mix large with small. This has been brought up on the board before... it seems very unfair to put a team of 12 against a team of 30. But I've been told if the judges are doing their job correctly, they do score appropriately. But it's just more impressive to have a large team, easier to hide stuff, I think. Competitions do this (mix large and small) because if they didn't, you would have too many divisions with just one or two. Mixing them gives the appearance of a better turnout because you have more teams that have someone to compete against. Jamz does it for regionals, but not for nationals (for nationals, they separate large and small).

Date: Fri Nov 17 8:25 AM, 2006

Looking at the schedule it looks like they divided the small and large if there were more than one in either category (senior level 4 for instance). But if there's only one team that's large, they mixed it in with all the small (senior level 3) so the large doesn't have to compete against nobody. This one seems to have the best turnout of the regionals we've seen in the bay area so far, good luck to all of you! Can't wait to hear how Fusion looks.

Date: Fri Nov 17 8:32 AM, 2006

I understand their reasoning behind combining these categories but don't agree. I am glad we decided not to go to AB this season. Probably won't return based on their reasoning to combine categories together. I can gurantee that those teams of 9-12 won't compare to the teams of 28-30 kids.

Date: Fri Nov 17 8:46 AM, 2006

Agree. Also, there are a couple divisions where they could have divided small and large because there are two large mixed in with small. But then they decided not to for other divisions. Doesn't seem to be a set pattern and it seems like it's just however they decide they want to divide it.

Date: Fri Nov 17 9:19 AM, 2006

Looks like there needs to be 3 teams in a single category before they divide into the large and small category. Take the Senior Level 3 category...only 2 of the teams are considered large. Had there been a 3rd large team...then the categories would have been split. (at least that's the only rational conclusion I can come up with.) You all are right about a team of 12 will not compete against a team of 35.

Don't you all think it's a money maker for the hosting company. Think about it...that's one less banner that needs to be produced, thats one less trophy that needs to be purchased (for the runner ups), and all those medallions that the girls will not receive.

Looks like we should be emailing the hosting company instead of discussing this issue on the board. It's really time to get these hosting companies in line with reality. Just think of all the dollars that will be generated this Saturday. I don't know how many performers will be in attendance this weekend but when you multiple that number by $40.00 that is a nice start to a profitable day.

Time to call or email AB.

Date: Fri Nov 17 9:44 AM, 2006

I think it's good to do BOTH ... let the hosting companies know how you feel about things you think are unfair or could be done better. But posting on this message board helps others realize they are not alone if they're thinking the same thing.

I don't know about the pattern ... if it takes three to divide small and large, why are there only two in a couple of the large divisions? One division seems to contradict the other, it's kind of strange.

I feel so bad for the team of 12 who has to go against the team of 27. There is no way to fairly compete.

Date: Fri Nov 17 9:56 AM, 2006

Oops, you are correct, it does seem to be if there are three they divide it. I was looking at divisions that had two, but in those cases there were only two competing in that particular division.

Jr. Level 2, there is a team of 13 competing against a team of 31. Come on...

Date: Fri Nov 17 11:30 AM, 2006

I have asked this question in the past, and this is what I was told by America's Best:

They always divide between Co-Ed and All-Girl Teams, regardless of the number of teams registered. However, to divide between large & small, they will only do so if it will leave at least 3 teams in each division (large & small). the schedule posted follows that criteria.

Personally, I don't like it to be that stringent, because I agree with others who have posted about the "hiding mistakes", the visual impression, etc. The truly small teams have to be utterly clean & nearly perfect to beat out the larger teams, but I have seen it happen.

Date: Fri Nov 17 12:40 PM, 2006

I would love to go back to the days of NO large and small divisions. NO level 1-6 divisions. I understand why the companies do it. $$$ The more champions they can crown, the more teams will come, the more money they make. But, I do yearn for the good ol days when it was a hardcore battle for the trophy.

I recently went to a rec league competition. Not only did they break it down by large and small. But if there were more than 4 teams in a division, they split it up again, so everyone would have a chance of bringing home a trophy. Most divisions had 3 teams, some had 2. So "everyone" placed in the top 3. I can see doing that maybe for the younger divisions, but definitely not the older divisions.

As far as allstar goes. There are probably not many gyms that can't claim to be "National Title" winners. Everybody has a title nowadays. But, as things are now, it sure does take away from the prestige.

Date: Fri Nov 17 12:43 PM, 2006

Me again. If I had to compromise. I would go back to the novice, intermediate and advanced divsions. 6 levels is way too much. And, I guess I could live with the large and small designations, although I like that some companies don't do it until nationals. Really, most regionals are pretty cheesy and only have 2 or 3 teams/division as it is. Why bust your butt if you're not gonna COMPETE.