MAG NCAA – return to 10?

Dwight Normile argues the case:

Men’s NCAA coaches opted for the FIG rules to help the international effort of the U.S. But that decision actually applies to an extremely small percentage of the approximate 300 competitors among the 17 college teams. Throw in the bad public relations of the weaker teams getting clobbered by the fully-funded ones, and it becomes evident that the current NCAA men’s rules are serving less than half of the remaining programs. …

Men’s NCAA gymnastics must redefine itself through inclusivity. Illinois coach Justin Spring tried to just that last season with a match-play dual meet against Minnesota. But he had a hard time convincing many of his coaching colleagues to rally behind it. If match play is not the answer, then a return to the 10.0—and easier routines—would level the playing field. …

Men’s NCAA Gymnastics Needs the 10.0 More Than Ever

Akash Modi went 90.10 last weekend as a Freshman for Stanford15.85 P Bars.

Would we have seen more media attention if that routine had been scored a “perfect 10”?

Bottom line:

1. I don’t think the Perfect 10 is making a comeback in MAG NCAA.

2. I’m not sure it would help the men’s survival chances. Much.

The top Universities only have 6.3 scholarships compared with women’s teams that have up to 12 scholarships.

It’s time to start (secretly) drafting a post-NCAA University club competitive structure.

What will survive if the NCAA drops MAG?

Is there any scenario that would result in more teams? More competitors?

(via Stick It MediaOklahoma, Michigan Prevail; Newburger Sets New Pommel Horse Record)

Published by

coach Rick

Career gymnastics coach from Calgary, Canada.

5 thoughts on “MAG NCAA – return to 10?”

  1. If you believe there is no hope, you guarantee their will be no hope.

    Openly giving up on men NCAA gymnastics will kill it.

    The lack of attention given to Modi is related to his gender, not any scoring system. Too bad he can’t run crying into the arms of Title Nine.

    The situation Normile describes is related to the very small numbers of teams, not the scoring system. This small number resulted from losses that mostly occurred while the 10 system was in place. The women’s side has also undergone a large decline in numbers – and they still have to 10.

    There are some people who just can’t let go of the 10.0, and will work backwards from that to come up with reasons to bring it back.

  2. A university club competitive structure already exists. The NAIGC has a large membership base compared to NCAA. They have 60-70 college clubs attend their nationals every year. They have absorbed clubs whose varsity programs were recently cut like MIT an JMU.

    However, the NAIGC has evolved somewhat haphazardly and independently of USAG or NCAA. With a looming potential tipping point for men’s NCAA, I think it would be cool for these two sides to start collaborating. With support and input from the greater MAG community, the organization could become a viable alternative for teams which get cut in the future.

    I love NCAA and everything it does for the US MAG program. But there must be planning to continue these benefits and keep high school gymnasts motivated for college in the event more teams get cut.

  3. I like the match play idea much more than 10.0. Taking that and improving it is a better path. They only had one shot. Why not experiment more?

    I really wish that the women would go to FIG rules also. It breaks my heart to hear some of them talk about not learning new tricks when they move to college. Gymnastics is really about learning and doing new tricks. Not repeating watered down routines.

    Title 9 is/has killed men’s gym. Wrestling does not have the FIG/10 controversy scoring issues of gym and it is being cut like crazy in NCAAs also.

    All that said, we shouldn’t be sooo sad about NCAA men’s scholarship sports dying since school should be about studies, not sports. Intramurals, with broad participation, are really more important than D1 activities. While high level gymnastics is not suitable for that sort of thing (because of equipment needs), low level may be. And in any case, other sports like track, powerlifting, wrestling, boxing, ball sports, etc. can be done very easily with non scholarship athlete programs.

    To the extent that higher level competition is needed/warranted, interschool play at the club level makes sense. Such squads can face off against remaining scholarship teams, non school based club teams, etc. This is how rugby teams are.

  4. I think it would alienate the top guys from coming to the NCAA. Why would they want to train two routines for two separate rule systems? Then that forces gymnasts to decide at 18ish whether to pursue the FIG track or the college track, but 18 is rarely the age at which male gymnasts peak. We have college gymnasts who never made an impact on the national scene as a junior all of a sudden vying for event titles at nationals because they are training under the FIG system.

    I think making gymnastics attractive to non-gymnasts to make fans is a lost cause. No amount of fans, save for 50-100K every weekend like large football schools, are going to make gymnastics profitable enough to be untouchable. What we need is a revised model. Ironically, Temple is that model; little to no scholarships, tiny budget, and a private club program to bring in its own independent revenue and supplemented by endowments from people who actually care about the sport. Make the program as low cost as possible to the school and continue to focus on attracting the best gymnasts and keep the fans that care about gymnastics. This is the best model that can work within the structure of the NCAA, big football, and title IX.

Leave a Comment