Implementing the new bid giving system will be a challenge, but I believe that everyone agrees that the current system needs changing or updating. As an event producer and gym owner, my views may be different than most, but I welcome open discussion until the right system is achieved. The system as I see it would share the USASF mission of increasing the number of participants while developing a simple system to follow. I believe that everyone should have the opportunity to compete, and everyone should understand how success is derived from competition. I also think the Spirit Industry must look at the financial burden placed on athletes and work to alleviate that as much as possible through an adequate system. I believe this financial burden is the largest obstacle in growing our activity. I believe it trumps safety, image, and rules in limiting participation. The system must identify and help correct this obstacle. The only recommendations of change from the former implementation plan are as follows:
I would allow all USASF member companies to award bids at all events. This would allow more teams the opportunity to compete more times without added expense. They could compete within their regions and still accumulate points. One point would be given for every team that you defeated with two day competitions counting double. The current system of only allowing two performance competitions to qualify financially limits the opportunities for some gyms and participants.
Competitions that are small in size could combine divisions to allow for more points to be offered at their events. This would allow all USASF competitions the opportunity to both help gyms, coaches, and participants accumulate points, and it would help to unite all USASF companies regardless of tier level or company affiliation. While this may seem like an obstacle for the largest companies, the fact is that many independent companies thrive because they hold events in more rural places that are more convenient to smaller programs with limited budgets. I also hope this would allow more participation in the USASF.
As teams accumulate points, they would only compete against teams in their divisions. This would help teams that are currently overlooked for bids because they are forced to compete for those bids against teams that are not in their division. The current system allows competitions to award the highest placing team a bid, but many competition scoring systems have level 6 teams on a higher scoring scale giving them an advantage.
All event producers would have the ability to forward points to a tracking site that would be updated during the season as a point’s race. This page would be accessible through competition sites and gym sites and would allow the USASF a way to better communicate with each event and gym or team at each event. I know this has been mentioned, but I think it is very important for parents, coaches, and kids to be able to track the progress of their team throughout a season.
I would suggest allowing the top 10 teams in each division to receive a paid bid to compete and these teams would advance to semifinals. The next 10 highest placing teams would have a partial paid bid and would compete in a quarter final round. The next 20 highest placing teams would be invited to attend at full cost to them and would compete in preliminaries (20 teams). The quarter final round would be limited to the 10 partial paid bids and 10 highest scores from preliminaries (20 teams). The semifinal round would include the 10 paid bid winners and the top 10 scores from the quarter final round of competition (20 teams). The final round of competition would consist of the 10 highest scores from the semifinal round of competition (10 Teams). This would allow maximum participation while having a great final event and it would allow for any winning team to compete at least twice.
I agree that we should take the points from the 5 most successful events for each team. I agree with the points determining the order at the end of the year event. I think that to be eligible for the end of the year event, the athlete must attend at least two of these events with the team.
As I stated before, this system is very simple to follow. It allows for maximum participation in the USASF by all event producers. It would reduce cost while increasing competition for many programs. It would help raise much needed funds for the USASF while hopefully alleviating financial USASF membership burdens on gyms, coaches, and gym owners. The largest obstacle will be to find a price per point that the event producers would provide the USASF. This could easily be done with data from event producers and budgets for the USASF and the end of the year events. I hope that we can continue discussion and debate to derive a system that accomplishes all of these goals that can be implemented sooner than later.