I have spent the better part of the morning catching up and reading all the posts regarding the new changes. I find myself initially not liking the changes at
all, and agreeing with many of the other dissenters. HOWEVER, some of the comments from the supporters have me intrigued - esp. the ones about the possibility
of other teams making the final four. And BSUbronco11's comments as an athlete has me intrigued as well. I believe in possibilities and would hope that our
sport would continue to increase opportunities for the girls rather than decrease them. If these changes truly increase opportunities for more teams having a
crack at the championship, I'm all for it! Having a daughter entering her senior year, none of the proposed changes will affect her directly, but I am
curious. Would anyone out there have the time to go over THIS year's national results, from prelims onwards (regionals would be too much of a challenge),
and apply the new rules to the teams that were at Nationals? I was there and know that many teams had mistakes both at prelims and the finals ... SO, how would
the results have changed if the 6 up 6 count rule applied this year and only 4 teams went to finals? How would finals have changed if 6 up 6 counted? I
don't have the time to figure this out, but knowing this info might help inform my decision as to whether I really like this change or not. I would be
really grateful if someone would take the time to do this. Thanks in advance! The only other niggly (is that a word?) thing in the back of my mind is, how
would these changes affect the judging? I do recall a number of "concerns" expressed that comparable routines performed by different gymnasts from
different schools received different scores or that despite obvious errors a routine scored higher than another. Will the pressure of 6 up 6 count cause judges
to be influenced in their scoring? (Yes, I know they aren't to be biased, but they ARE human and a tenth here or there difference is often all it is, but
that tenth can be huge when 6 up 6 count!)
| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 luvtochat
|
Anyone have time? |
Lead | ||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 50 07/03/09 12:52 PM Gym Fan |
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
dumbgymdad |
No Utah (or UCLA)! | #1 | ||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 388 07/03/09 01:30 PM Super Gym Fan |
Based solely on scores from preliminaries, neither Utah nor UCLA would have gone to the Finals because they tied for 3rd in their Preliminary Round.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
CalicoIzzy |
Give me 10 minutes and I'll run the math | #2 | ||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 2666 07/03/09 01:30 PM Double Layout Punch Front |
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
CalicoIzzy |
OK, first set of math - PRELIMS | #3 | ||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 2666 07/03/09 02:04 PM Double Layout Punch Front |
Session One
1) Georgia 236.025 2) Penn State 235.100 3) Stanford 234.500 4) LSU 234.200 5) Oklahoma 234.100 6) Florida 234.025 Session Two 1) Alabama 235.675 2) Arkansas 235.300 3) Utah 234.650 4) UCLA 234.575 5) Oregon State 233.250 6) Illinois 233.075 |
|||
|
|
||||
|
dumbgymdad |
Surprise! | #4 | ||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 388 07/03/09 02:12 PM Super Gym Fan |
I just did a little number-crunching of my own. If you count all 6 routines in the score and take the best two from each preliminary round, you get Alabama
and Arkansas from one round and Georgia and ........ [drum roll] ........... Penn State from the other round! Penn State simply didn't have to count a
fall, so they would have advanced.
Isn't it ironic that it was the Penn State team that was quoted in dislike for the new rules (saying what I suspect most teams would also say)? |
|||
|
|
||||
|
dumbgymdad |
Florida, LSU, and Utah | #5 | ||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 388 07/03/09 02:14 PM Super Gym Fan |
Florida, LSU, and Utah would have been left out of the finals!
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
CalicoIzzy |
And second set - FINALS | #6 | ||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 2666 07/03/09 02:15 PM Double Layout Punch Front |
1) ALABAMA 236.800
2) UGA 236.425 3) Utah 235.550 4) Florida 235.475 5) Arkansas 234.650 6) LSU 234.350 |
|||
|
|
||||
|
dumbgymdad |
Wow! | #7 | ||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 388 07/03/09 02:27 PM Super Gym Fan |
I didn't do the math for the Finals. I guess this ends the speculation on whether the new rules will make a difference. Of course, teams will use
different strategy with the new rules which will affect the outcome. But, these numbers clearly show what can happen with the new rules:
Penn State didn't make the Final Six under the current rules, but would have made the Final Four under the new rules. Alabama, rather than Georgia, would have won the Championship. These rules are going to shake things up. Hopefully, it does result in an opening up of the 4-team lock on the national championship. Yet, somebody will have to step up, take the opportunity, and earn the victory. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
JaDouche |
Sort of a moot point. Under new rules schools would compete different routines/lineups. NM | #8 | ||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 192 07/03/09 02:57 PM |
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
CalicoIzzy |
How do you know teams would've competed different skills/lineups? | #9 | ||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 2666 07/03/09 04:18 PM Double Layout Punch Front |
That's where I don't buy this whole "everyone is going to conservative" line that several people are pushing. If you take a look at the
coaching philosophies of Greg Marsden, Sarah Patterson and Suzanne Yoculan, I'd like to know WHEN they were competing skills or routines or lineups at
championships that were inconsistent. Case in point: several Utah athletes did not show their upgrades in the postseason (Deetscreek's double arabian,
Mackie's full-in, both on floor). Yoculan's floor lineup may have been throwing E passes, but those routines had been pretty much set in stone all
season. As for Bama, are you going to tell me Patterson would've had any different skills or lineups out there? As for the other teams, Florida literally
had the only lineup it could at that point, Arkansas wasn't exactly throwing the most difficult routines out there and LSU? Inconsistent at championships
anyhow.
Frankly, I think this gives a pretty GOOD representation of what can happen in the future. And I like that Bama won, so.... |
|||
|
|
||||
|
ChoirboysGirl |
What about regionals | #10 | ||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 147 07/03/09 04:32 PM Giant Gym Fan |
using the new rules...would these 12 be the ones at nationals?
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
JaDouche |
Re: How do you know teams would've competed different skills/lineups? | #11 | ||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 192 07/03/09 08:10 PM |
Case in point: It's common sense.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
pridd02 |
regionals | #12 | ||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 12 07/04/09 08:52 AM |
As has been figured before, the only switch in the top 12 for 2009 would have been Michigan instead of Stanford.
If you look at the actuals, there aren't many changes at all: 2009 Regional 1. Georgia 2. Penn State 3. Nebraska 4. West Virginia 5. NC State (was 6th) 6. North Carolina (was 5th) Regional 1. UCLA (was 2nd) 2. Florida (was 1st) 3. Denver (was 4th) 4. Iowa State (was 3rd) 5. Minnesota 6. Iowa Regional 1. Utah 2. Illinois 3. Boise State 4. Auburn 5. San Jose State (was 6th) 6. Washington (was 5th) Regional (no changes) 1. Alabama 2. Oklahoma 3. Missouri 4. Central Michigan 5. New Hampshire 6. Maryland Regional (no changes) 1. LSU 2. Oregon State 3. Ohio State 4. Michigan State 5. Kent State 6. Kentucky Regional 1. Arkansas 2. Michigan (was 3rd) 3. Stanford (was 2nd) 4. Arizona 5. Arizona State 6. Southern Utah |
|||
|
|
||||
|
pridd02 |
2008 | #13 | ||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 12 07/04/09 09:08 AM |
If you look here, there aren't many changes either. There are 2 different teams that go on: Nebraska would be considered one of the "regulars"
anyway, and Illinois would get to qualify one year earlier. Otherwise, the scenario at Nationals is exactly the same, which is why I cannot get excited about
the changes.
Regional (no change) 1. Georgia 2. Denver 3. Penn State 4. Auburn 5. BYU 6. Iowa State Regional 1. Florida 2. Nebraska (was 3rd) 3. UCLA (was 2nd) 4. West Virginia 5. North Carolina State 6. North Carolina Regional (no changes) 1. Utah 2. Arkansas 3. Minnesota 4. Arizona 5. Southern Utah 6. Iowa Regional (same 2 qualify) 1. Michigan (was 2nd) 2. Oregon State (was 1st) 3. Michigan State 4. Washington 5. San Jose State 6. Sacramento State Regional 1. Alabama 2. Illinois (was 3rd) 3. Oklahoma (was 2nd) 4. Boise State 5. SEMO 6. Arizona State Regional (same 2 qualify) 1. Stanford (was 2nd) 2. LSU (was 1st) 3. Ohio State 4. Kentucky (was 5th) 5. Missouri (was 4th) 6. Kent State |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Sneakerface |
this thread made me realize | #14 | ||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 224 07/05/09 06:01 PM Super Gym Fan |
Maybe the reason I (& perhaps others ?) particularly don't like the idea of Nationals with only 4 teams - Regionals hardly get any coverage in the
media, at least in my neck of the woods. Everything is about Nat'ls. I think if they were to insert the word "playoffs" (since that's what it
is, essentially) it would be more meaningful to the larger media outlets. In any case, I think Regionals should be emphasized and covered more.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
newbee |
Agreed! | #15 | ||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 1867 07/05/09 06:06 PM Double Layout Punch Front |
Sneakerface wrote:I agree. If Regionals were to somehow become a playoff and be more tied directly to Nationals, like you mentioned, I think it would help a little with the buildup, excitement, respect and coverage. The hard part is it probably won't ever happen because gymnastics isn't a team sport, and because of that, the NCAA is just not likely to allow it to change the format. But I do like your thinking! |
|||
|
|
||||
|
tbm |
#16 | |||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 24 07/05/09 07:48 PM |
I agree. If Regionals were to somehow become a playoff and be more tied directly to Nationals, like you mentioned, I think it would help a little with the
buildup, excitement, respect and coverage. The hard part is it probably won't ever happen because gymnastics isn't a team sport, and because of that,
the NCAA is just not likely to allow it to change the format. But I do like your thinking!
But college gymnastics IS a team sport. When is the last time we've seen more than a few seconds of all around and event finals coverage during nationals? I think if you were to ask any college gymnast, he/she'd say that it absolutely is all about the team. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
newbee |
#17 | |||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 1867 07/05/09 08:33 PM Double Layout Punch Front |
tbm wrote: I agree, but technically it's not listed as a team sport. Because we have the individual aspect of event finals we are considered by the NCAA as an individual sport, which can be helpful in some ways, such as bringing notoriety to teams that don't qulalify for post season, but detrimental in other ways, like getting more support from the NCAA in funding our post-season format. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
dumbgymdad |
National promotional body | #18 | ||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 388 07/06/09 11:14 AM Super Gym Fan |
I don't think changing the name from "regional" to "playoffs" will make a big difference. Heck, calling the nationals
"Nationals" still didn't get a big crowd. I'm seeing the need for a national body that takes responsibility for promotion. While I would
have liked to see Nebraska do more promotion, I don't think they deserve most of the blame. Just like I don't expect an occasional host of a regional
meet (or playoff) to be able to do much more than local promotion. Schools know how to promote their own teams, that's it. It is unreasonable to expect
them to dial up for a single event every several years. Now, I'm not sure that the NCAA is the right entity either because they have shown that they
can't (won't) do it. It may take something like the coaches association, CBS, a gymnastics magazine, or some new entity to take up this cause.
How does college baseball do it? Does having it in one location every year make the difference? |
|||
|
|
||||
|
luvtochat |
Thank you | #19 | ||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 50 07/06/09 11:41 PM Gym Fan |
Thanks to all who took the time to do the math! It was interesting to see how things could have changed had the new rules been in place for this year and I
don't agree that the teams would have "watered down" their routines. I agree that what they would do is put out their most consistent, strongest
routines and, even though there were a lot of falls, they generally were in very uncharacteristic places by some unusual people ... ie the most consistent
person on the team "surprised" everyone by falling on a simplistic skill (for her). Given the info from the math, I think that it could be very
interesting in 2011! Time will tell ... As to my decision as to liking/disliking? I'm still on the dislike side, but less so now. I'll be interested to
hear from Greg and Suzanne (and her research) and other coaches how they feel about the decision ... since the NCAA committee didn't accept their total
recommendations. Thanks again!
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
JERSEYPAIGE |
#20 | |||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 56 07/12/09 05:59 PM |
luvtochat wrote: |
|||
|
|
||||
