UPDATE – Check the comments on this post. Very interesting. Ono is flying from California to watch Minnesota v Illinois. To see the format in person.
Men’s NCAA is failing. I’m keen to try anything to improve chances of survival. A similar format to this has worked in Germany.
The experiment reminds me of Snowboard cross (boardercross), first tried 1991. Now in the Olympics.
Click PLAY or watch it on YouTube.
Ski racing for time was boring to me. But I love boardercross.
_____ original post:
An experiment this weekend. Sounds GREAT to me.
… both teams will be on the same event and will strategically select five athletes to battle, one on one against the other team. …
Winning routine gains 1-point.
Click PLAY or listen to Justin explain it on YouTube.
First team to 16 points, wins.
The trailing team competes second. Nice touch.
Tie-breaker sounds pretty goofy, however.
via @StickItMedia
UPDATE from USA FIG Judge in the comments:
… The idea (officially referred to as the “bracket system” by the NCAA Rules Committee) …
Cliff Gauthier at William & Mary has been proposing this (and an alternative) head-to-head scoring system since the early 1980s. The NCAA Rules Committee adopted it this year because a critical mass of NCAA coaches (including Justin Spring and others) signed onto the concept. The bracket system is available only in dual meets in which both coaches agree to use it.
Dave, in the comments, has some concerns.
31 comments ↓
I’m sorry, but what do you love about it? Is it the fact that unevenly matched teams, which describes about half of each week’s NCAA match-ups, won’t make it past four events, keeping many guys from even getting a chance to compete?
Do you love that it adds yet another layer of confusion to an already spectator unfriendly and overly complicated sport? OK, there’s the score, now compare that to another score we saw before and then convert that into points. And if you tie, oh brother, you need a manual to explain it!
Do you love the idea that if someone screws up under this format, they might as well be safe and quit, rather than complete their routine? Or that it makes it strategic for coaches to sacrifice certain gymnasts against competitors they know no one on their squad can best? Wouldn’t you love to be THAT guy in the line-up?
Do you love it that the hard-working guys of, say, Air Force, could go an entire season going against teams like Stanford, Cal and Oklahoma without scoring a single point? Or how about teams like Iowa and Nebraska that are out-matched most weekends in the Big 10? Or UIC? Or Temple? Now, at least those teams can constantly challenge themselves to improve on their season-high event and team totals, keeping them focused and motivated and, hopefully, improving year over year. Personally, I just can’t imagine anything more demoralizing.
I like that Spring’s passionate, and coming up with new ideas, but this is goofy, gimmicky nonsense.
If you want drama, five-up, five-count can provide that. And I’m glad the men are coming up with some new ideas to shake things up, but that doesn’t mean you need to reinvent the sport to the point it becomes unrecognizable.
One quick point, Rick: Although Justin’s the one explaining the format in the video, it shouldn’t be attributed to him. The idea (officially referred to as the “bracket system” by the NCAA Rules Committee) long predates him. Cliff Gauthier at William & Mary has been proposing this (and an alternative) head-to-head scoring system since the early 1980s. The NCAA Rules Committee adopted it this year because a critical mass of NCAA coaches (including Justin Spring and others) signed onto the concept. The bracket system is available only in dual meets in which both coaches agree to use it.
Dave brings up several good concerns; only experience will tell whether those concerns will materialize. But I thought I’d correct one misunderstanding: “Is it the fact that unevenly matched teams, which describes about half of each week’s NCAA match-ups, won’t make it past four events, keeping many guys from even getting a chance to compete?” Under the way the NCAA Rules Committee has described the bracket system, the meet doesn’t end early if there’s a blowout. Both teams would finish the meet the same as under normal scoring rules.
Some good concerns.
But I’d love to see it tried.
We’ve not got much to lose the way we’re doing it now.
I’m hoping it will succeed the way Snowboard cross succeeded.
FAR better and more entertaining than the old way of racing.
Thanks. I updated the post to credit Cliff.
Sound great, except for the 1st to 16 point. It should just be who has the higher total after all 6 events. I think the judging also needs to speed up otherwise the comp will go too long. Would also probably be better to just have 4 guys per event so the comp doesn’t go to long, but otherwise this is the best format to promote the sport. And best of all it’s simple for outsiders to understand. You can easily see who’s winning and you can better understand the impact of each routine.
I agree with pretty much all of what Dave said, especially his concerns about how this might affect participation opportunities and the morale of weaker teams.
If this format is adopted accross the board, how will teams be accurately ranked? Win-loss record won’t be fair unless every team has an equally strong schedule. William & Mary would probably end up ranked higher than Cal, because most of Cal’s meets are against stronger opponents. Also, it’s mathematically possible for a team with more points under the FIG system to lose the meet (sort of like a US president winning the electoral college, but not the popular vote).
I don’t see how it will be easier to see who is winning with this format. Most people are smart enough to figure out that 15.4 is a bigger number than 14.3. The problem with the meets as they are run now is that the scores are not easy to follow because of the way they are displayed. In an era where most people are glued to smartphones and tablets, that problem could be easily solved by requiring all meets to have working live scoring.
The assumption seems to be that the lack of popularity of men’s NCAA gymnastics is caused by the format and the scoring. Is there real evidence to support that belief? The truth is most likely far more complicated than that.
My take on it is Spring trying introduce some elements into gymnastics that are found in most other sports, such as directly facing an opponent and changing strategy in response to what that opponent is doing. When it comes to what motivates people to watch sports, I believe that logic is sound. I’m just not sure how practical it is to apply to gymnastics.
The only way to really find out if an idea works is to do the experiment, so I’m glad someone is trying. It beats the heck out of people sitting around complaining there is nothing that can save the men’s NCAA.
I don’t like the idea, because I like men’s college gym the way it is just fine. When I see it for real, I might change my mind. I just hope that both those who are for it and those who don’t like it can step back and treat it like a science experiment…keep an open mind, give it a fair chance, keep the good, and move on from the parts that don’t work so well. It will probably take several iterations to come up with a better system than what we have now, but this is a start.
The biggest confusion factor for most people attending these meets is everything happening at once. Spring’s proposal does address that.
I agree with Ono No Komachi’s words that point out, that the problem with the meets is the scores, which aren’t easy to follow due to the way they are displayed.
The German Bundesliga has been working already with this head-to-head competition format for several years now with a lot of succeed, which mean the gym-halls are full, not only with former gymnasts and coaches, but also with parents, grandpas and grandmas, friends and neighbours who understand, follow and enjoy every second of the match.
And that is how gymnastic matches became interesting for sponsors allowing big money to flow.
See, if you spend time reading and writing on this site, you have proven to care lots about this beautiful sport of us, so why not let them try and see how it develops in Amerika, since it would be just too sad to give up without even trying all the possibilities.
I agree that this format is much simpler for audiences to understand and get into. Although certainly this is only 1 part of the puzzle of making the sport more popular. More important would be more marketing and promotion and better engagement with grassroots levels. But that needs to be done on a solid base. And this format provides that.
However, the NCAA also needs make the regular season more important by doing something like having a ladder based on win-loss record and maybe dividing the teams into 2 divisions or something like that to make it more equal.
But anyway, this is hardly the first time this format has been used. It is also used in the Bundesliga in Germany (although there you can get more than 1 point for each routine) and it seems to work well there. I think this is just a first step to improving the NCAA competition and hopefully this leads into this format being used internationally. If the meets are well run then the doubters will soon come around.
I like the idea overall. I’ve always thought a more head-to-head format is what gymnastics needs – including in our 3 up 3 count team finals formats at worlds and Olympics. A couple questions: How will the coaches agree on who goes head to head? Also, what if a team doesn’t have five gymnasts who can do a standing full for the tiebreaker? I wouldn’t think that is a given…a standing full is very hard to do. I also would rather see a meet play out to the end regardless of how much a team is winning by.
I love seeing changes though, and I’m excited to see how it plays out.
Jason, can you tell me how you know in advance that this format will provide the base needed to better market the men’s NCAA? Unless you can see the future, you cannot know this. No one can. You cannot assume the doubters “will come around”. It’s just as likely these ideas will not have the positive effect most people here seem to believe.
The most surefire way to ruin an experiment is to have already decided on the outcome before the trial is run. I’m seeing a lot of that starting up here.
Medicine is certainly filled with examples of ideas that were met with great resistance which were proven to be live savers. It took quite a while for physicians to realize they should wash their hands between patients. It’s also filled with examples of ideas that sounded great at the time and were widely accepted, but turned out to be disasters. Vioxx, anyone?
Which one this latest idea for gymnastics is, I don’t know. No one does.
That’s why took time I flew from sunny CA to wintery Illinois to see for myself with my own eyes. Because I don’t know.
I’m forcing myself to keep an open mind, and remain open to accepting change. I have to wait and see.
I may have issues with the idea, but I actually think the NCAA isn’t going far enough here. They need to run a full on trial with evidence gathering and analysis, both from supporters and critics. I would like to see Cal and Stanford try the idea at some of their meets. One day isn’t going to tell me much of anything.
I agree with Andy that the meets should be allowed to run their course. The tie should be broken by having people do routines until the tie is broken. Having a team break the tie by doing a particular skill is just not fair for the reasons he pointed out.
One more quick clarification:
Andy asked, “How will the coaches agree on who goes head to head?” The short answer: they don’t. Coach of Team A won’t know which gymnasts Coach of Team B will put in the line-up or in what order (and vice versa). So to a significant degree, a team’s line-up becomes a matter of on-the-spot, turn-by-turn strategy (as well as knowing your opponent). E.g., If Team B puts up its best Floor gymnast first and he falls twice, then Team A may know that it can put up its “weakest” PH gymnast, whose clean, less difficult routine on PH can outscore Team B’s gymnast’s Floor routine with two falls. And so forth.
I agree about keeping an open mind, to an extent, but there are so many problems with this proposed format, I don’t really need to see it, to know it doesn’t work.
And, by the way, it’s not really “head-to-head” unless guys are going on the same event, turn by turn. Pitting pommel horse against floor makes this even more ludicrous than I already thought it was.
The do-an-arbitrary-skill to tie break is just plain stupid. Is this a game show or a sporting event?
Lastly, anyone who thinks the 12-15 team NCAA is going to have any impact on the sport internationally is kidding themselves. To stay relevant and viable men’s NCAA needs to get MORE like the Olympics, the pinnacle of our sport, not less.
If this was ever implemented for real, I feel 100 percent confident it would take less than five years before men’s gymnastics ceases to exist at the college level. The top guys would go elsewhere, immediately, cause if you’re training for the Olympics doing this nonsense every weekend isn’t corollary, and not only that, but this actually exacerbates the problem that so many lower-tier schools already complain is killing them with their administrators: the rich (a.k.a. schools that win championships) getting richer, leaving the also-rans no room for advancement.
By the way, “top guys” doesn’t just mean Olympians or National Team members: it means almost every 17-year-old that’s been a junior national team member, or even gotten really close, and aspires to that Olympic goal. If they think NCAA is a deterrent to achieving it, they’ll flee. Just like they did under the modified rule system, which was supposed to make men’s gymnastics higher-scoring and, thus, more popular, of the 1990s. Remember? Back when 1 out of 6 of our World or Olympic team members were former college gymnasts? Instead of 5 out of 6 like now?
As a college gymnast myself, I’m almost embarrassed to admit I once had (totally unrealistic) Olympic aspirations. But if someone had tried to tell me when I was 16 that they were pie-in-the-sky so I should just focus on NCAA, I’d have been really mad, and I also would have missed out on the greatest four years of my gymnastics life.
We’ll see how it pans out, but the best thing to happen to men’s NCAA gymnastics could be A) the new NCAA rules allowing athletes to take prize money and training funds and still remain college-eligible and B) sadly, if wrestling really does get bumped from the Games, it gives men’s gymnastics a tiny leg up on that other most-cut sport for admins when they’re looking to trim the budget.
Dave last post has brought up some legitimate concerns.
The concern about changing the format away from the one used in the Olympics was a concern raised by OU head coach Mark Williams, who went on the record on 2012 as not supporting the format change and giving that as one of the reasons.
I would also use caution in extrapolating anything that happens in the sporting world of Germany to the U.S. After all, men’s soccer is huge in Germany, but far from the mainstream in the United States. On the other hand, the NFL is nowhere in Germany. This cannot be attributed to the format, as those sports are played pretty much the same way in both places (is there even American Football in Germany).
I also think it’s worth noting that the strongest objections to the new format here have been raised by Dave and myself, who are probably the most hardcore men’s NCAA fans who read and post on this site.
The women’s NCAA puts me right to sleep. Literally. I have fallen asleep more than once. That says far more about me and what I like than it does about either the athletes or the meet format.
Don’t forget Ron Noe of Stick it Media.
Hey Dave, I don’t remember this:
“Back when 1 out of 6 of our World or Olympic team members were former college gymnasts? Instead of 5 out of 6 like now?”
Guys like John R., Blaine, Kip S, Jair L. Chainey U. all NCAA to name a few. You said the “90s”.
@Ono, by a solid base I just mean a good format that outsiders can come in an understand and hopefully become a fan of the sport. Currently they would come in to see Minnesota and Illinois on different apparatus just going about their business until the end of the rotation when they could see for example that Illinois has a lead of X.X. If they are supporting Illinois they might not realise the impact of a fall from the one of the Illinois guys. But in the head to head format they can really get into it as they see that the Illinois guy might need for example a 13.5 to get the point. Then if they fall they will know it really hurts their chance and it will be a lot more exciting.
I don’t really think the format is a big change for the gymnasts. They are still doing exactly the same routines with the same requirements. So anyone who wants to do NCAA and also try for worlds/Olympics would be in exactly the same position as they are now. It is just that who wins the comp is decided slightly differently. It really is not an issue. Only an idiot would decide to not compete NCAA because of this change.
And also, they could still calculate the team scores as they would be under the current format by adding together all the scores. So, if teams want to see that they are improving over time they can still do that. Most of the issues raised are really non-issues, people just need to see how this format goes rather than trying to make up excuses before they have even seen it.
Anyone who doesn’t believe their was a lost generation of US gymnasts, some whose names you heard of, many you didn’t, that shunned the NCAA from about 1995-05, coincidentally, the same time they used a “modified” Code is kidding themselves. I also don’t remember it having any popularity uptick during that period, even though everyone swore it would help the college side of the sport.
Jason, does football simply the rules so that “outsiders” can become fans? Gymnastics is a complicated sport, with lots of arcane rules and variable scoring. It just is. You can’t change that. And if you do, it’s no longer going to be gymnastics.
Clinton, if this is “just the same” as what everyone is doing now, but simply adding another layer of (fake) drama, then what’s even the point? Again, why make the sport MORE complicated?
What the sport actually needs is better, faster and tighter meets. Even I get bored going to NCAA meets sometimes. Better in-arena entertainment and explanations. Better marketing on campuses and in the local communities. And, in an ideal dream world, more teams across a wider swath of the country. All, or some, of the above would do a lot more than these constant format tweaks designed to “save,” or reinvent, the sport. Let’s face it, at this point they’re just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Look, no one would like to be wrong about this more than me. My vehemence comes from fear that some of these radical, hail mary schemes might actually have the opposite effect and speed the sport’s demise.
I guess I just don’t see that as a “non-issue”
In terms of number of routines performed (percentage-wise) of non-NCAA gymnasts in the Olympic Games on a US team, 2012 was the highest in history.
Some sports such as cricket have had great success by changing the rules. Cricket was faced with dwindling crowds and sponsorship and lack of interest from younger audiences in the late 90′s, then they came up with twenty 20 cricket. A faster quicker form of the game that is more exciting and this has seen it generate much more interest than ever before and has led to the creation of the IPL and other leagues.
Mainly a consequence of top gymnasts now going “pro”, I reckon.
Orozco, for example, would likely be in Collegiate gymnastics if he had not gone pro.
Dave’s got some valid concerns.
But it can’t hurt to give it new formats a try. Let’s keep an open mind.
Without trying something new, MAG NCAA is going to dwindle and disappear.
Dave’s issues are not “non issues”. Far from it.
Many of them could be addressed by running both new and “old” formats simultaneously…have the head to head format scoring for the “outsiders” and live FIG scoring people like me could follow on our phones.
“@Ono, by a solid base I just mean a good format that outsiders can come in an understand and hopefully become a fan of the sport”…
I actually know an outsider without the usual connections to the sport of gymnastics (i.e. current or former gymnast or family member) who was somehow exposed to the men’s NCAA, became a huge fan, and gave support to UC Berkeley when they needed it. Well, that person was me. It happened despite the supposedly boring, confusing scoring system that is currently in place.
I’m not thrilled about the new system because I like the old one just fine. I’ve learned to look at the numbers and see a painting with thousands of different colors. I can see the stories there. I’m afraid this new thing will turn that color picture into something completely black and white.
If it turns out I’m the only one who can see the picture the way it is now, but the majority of people would rather see black and white, I will just learn to live with it.
I do not believe the decline in men’s NCAA programs has anything to do with the NCAA rules, judging, spectator interest or anything else under the control of mens coaches and officials. The decline of high school programs, title 9 and budget cuts all played the major rolls. This being said, the new experiment may bring some excitement and at least change maybe for the better.
As far as these rules effecting the Olympic program, I think it can help. Guys may be encouraged to try more difficult routines knowing they need to possibly beat the best guy on the other team.
The most important actions moving forward are the current NCAA coaches abilities to remain active and well liked in their athletic departments and USAG actively supporting the programs in a variety of ways.
“Currently they would come in to see Minnesota and Illinois on different apparatus just going about their business until the end of the rotation when they could see for example that Illinois has a lead of X.X. ”
For the record, this is not true. At least at Stanford and California, running scores are posted throughout the meet, not just at the end of the rotations. I seem to recall this happening at the NCAA Championships as well.
Also, there is data to suggest that lack of spectator interest is one of the major reasons NCAA sports get cut. That said, I agree with Start Value that most of the bad things that happened to the men’s NCAA were not caused by things that were under the control of college coaches or athletes.
The loss high school programs had to have been a factor. When ADs look at sports to chop, one criteria they use is how many “feeder” programs exist for a given sport.
The football “arms race”, Title lX, and most of all budget cuts is what really did it.
I’m a broken record on the subject, but it’s the $$$. That money isn’t going to come from ticket sales. If it comes from anywhere, it’s going to mostly come from those who already support and love men’s college gym.
Ono is absolutely correct about running scores. One of the changes made by the NCAA Rules Committee this year was to require running team totals after each routine at all NCAA meets and to impose a 2.0 deduction (after one warning) on the host team’s score for not complying. (Live updates to team totals were not formally required before this year.) From Section 3.D of the 2012-2013 NCAA Rules:
“For all meets, running totals after each copetitor must be displayed. Running totals should be announced whenever practical. If the team scores are not shown as directed, after one warning, a two point (2.00) deduction will be taken from the host team’s final score by the Director of Officials.”
If you attend college swimming, cross country, golf, tennis, even baseball and track and field on many campuses the stands are empty and they don’t charge! At least most men’s team charge. ADs don’t care because they get it. But if the AD tried to drop wrestling in Ohio or Iowa, he would loose his job. The public outcry would kill him. But if they drop mens gymnastics they get a few letters from club parents and boys coaches. No big deal.
Spring’s proposal may have areas of flawed logic (at least in my opinion), but tying the survival of an NCAA sport to the number of spectators it draws is not one of them. In this case, Spring has the evidence on his side.
The US Government Accounting Office gathered data on this question, and the results showed the top reason for sports being cut was “lack of student interest”, and a key measure of that has to be how many people attend the events. I will attempt to find the link and send it Coach Rick.
I would not be surprised that if in the course of Spring’s coursework towards his Master’s degree he studied this report.
There are certainly many examples of non revenue sports that survive despite empty stands, but it does not follow that the numbers of fans in the stands has no effect on a sports survival.
I remember the study Ono. From Asst. ADs interviewed at mostly Div. 1 institutions. Some said lack of funding or low student interest. Total CRAP. They never say title 9. If it is funding they look for the most money they can get with the least public push back. If you take football and mens basketball out of the equation, NCAA men’s gymnastics spectator attendance does ok-well. There are many factors in the determination of sport sponsorship at universities and it differs from school to school. Maybe “student interest” is one of them at certain institutions but it is a small factor concerning most sports. Many students don’t even know which sports their school offers and most if not almost all don’t care.
What a bunch of negative Nancy whiners. Sheesh. Give it a chance.
My personal opinion in response to Dave’s first comment:
“Do you love the idea that if someone screws up under this format, they might as well be safe and quit, rather than complete their routine?”
Yes, it will make the meet shorter. Since all that matters is the team in college athletics a loss is a loss. If a coach doesn’t like that approach they can have their athlete complete the routine.
“Or that it makes it strategic for coaches to sacrifice certain gymnasts against competitors they know no one on their squad can best? Wouldn’t you love to be THAT guy in the line-up?”
Kind of like the mop up guy in baseball who gets put in to take a beating in the ninth inning when they are already down by 10 runs. Or like the guy on the basketball team that rides the bench the entire year just to get put in with 45 seconds left in a blowout to keep the other players healthy? I think its brilliant. ITS CALLED SPORTS! If you can’t handle it there is someone else ready to take that spot just to get the opportunity to compete just like the guys in these 2 examples.
“Do you love it that the hard-working guys of, say, Air Force, could go an entire season going against teams like Stanford, Cal and Oklahoma without scoring a single point?”
The team that is losing has the advantage of going second the entire meet so I doubt that a team will EVER not score a point. Why is it any different than getting blown out 446.55 – 403.6. At least in this format you have an advantage by going second and you might be able to get a point or 2 on each event. At least in this format, I as a fan, can know that my team is getting blown out instead of having false hope that they are still in a meet of 446.55 – 403.6.
“Or how about teams like Iowa and Nebraska that are out-matched most weekends in the Big 10?”
With the advantage of going second they might actually have a chance at an upset for once.
“Or UIC? Or Temple? Now, at least those teams can constantly challenge themselves to improve on their season-high event and team totals, keeping them focused and motivated and, hopefully, improving year over year.”
Sooooooooo, kind of like losing 1-29 and then 3-27 and then 5-25 and then 10-20?
“Personally, I just can’t imagine anything more demoralizing.”
Like a bad team getting beat in any other sport? at least in those sports you know they are bad and can scrutinize them and coaches are forced to change or get fired.
I LOVE IT
Leave a Comment