The University is At Risk. The Insurance, the NCAA and Covering (lack of) Cheerleaders

In the landscape of intercollegiate athletics, the NCAA does not provide direct governance, regulation nor safety standards for cheerleading.  In spite of the increasing risk factors involved with the skill set utilized by cheerleading teams and the high rate of catastrophic injury those athletes, the NCAA has ignored part of its primary purpose with regard to safety of its member athletes.  It should be expected that the NCAA would recognize this extraordinary risk position and actively engage an avenue of leadership in developing more comprehensive safety, liability and skill-based education programs for coaches, athletes and awareness for administrators.  The NCAA continues to demonstrate its deficient interest in the very group of athletes that fly, jump, flip and simply just stand for the same sportsmanship and leadership at the core of the association’s stated values.   This is transparent through their unwillingness to accept responsibility over the sport-like activity of cheerleading.  While engaging the cheerleading industry leader for guidance appears to be a sound course of action, it should however, be limited to an advisory role.  Instead, this relationship has led to the only instance where intercollegiate athletic department teams are governed and regulated by for profit industry.

NCAA Cheerleading Safety InitiativeThe NCAA has partnered with Varsity Brands, the parent company of the largest national cheer organizations, to undertake an important cheerleading risk management initiative with a goal of enhancing safety for college cheerleaders. As a first step in this initiative, effective August 1, 2006, the NCAA's Catastrophic Injury Insurance Program includes a new requirement in order for an institution's cheerleading program to be included as a covered event under the policy.The new requirement states that cheerleading activities must be supervised by a safety-certified coach or advisor. While there are choices among certifying organizations, the NCAA has partnered with, and recommends the American Association of Cheerleading Coaches and Administrators (AACCA). AACCA offers certification courses year-round at sites across the country. Once completed, the safety certification remains in effect for four years.

Insurance for cheerleading programs is currently provided in 3 levels by this partnership with NCAA, Varsity and Mutual of Omaha.

NCAA Catastrophic Insurance (NCAA Insurance)Varsity Catastrophic Insurance (Compete Insurance)Varsity Expanded Insurance (Everything Else Insurance)

“NCAA Insurance”

The NCAA Insurance is the same package that all other NCAA athletes are covered by during the course of their participation.  This coverage is only extended to athletic department sponsored teams.  This would not include student organization teams that cheer at games or club teams that participate in intercollegiate events.  The team must be sponsored (supported financially/benefits) by the intercollegiate athletic department.

Teams are ONLY covered under the following conditions/requirements:

·         The coach/advisor is certified by a formal credentialing program for safety

·         The coach/advisor is designated by the university as such

·         The coach/advisor is NOT a student coach, current member of the team or a full-time undergraduate student

·         The activity must be supervised by that designated coach/advisor

·         Covered activities ONLY include NCAA sport team competition, practices for those events and pep rallies

·         Coverage does NOT include alumni events, fundraisers, camps, clinics, competitions or the practices for those events.

Performances, appearances, alumni events and other university based functions are a standard expectation of duties an athletic department might have for its spirit squad.  These activities are clearly not covered by the NCAA’s Catastrophic insurance program.  It is safe to conclude that the overwhelming majority of NCAA institutions do not have sufficient catastrophic coverage given their participation in activities other than cheering at games, pep rallies or the practices for those events.

OF NOTE:

·         NCAA requires safety certification, but not specifically AACCA. 

·         NCAA itself does not make any rules or require that you follow AACCA rules.

o    It’s insurance that actually says they won’t cover you if you do certain skills

“Competition Insurance”

The Varsity Catastrophic policy is coverage for competitions, camps and clinics.  This “gap” insurance is an additional coverage that was negotiated by Varsity Brands through their insurance broker Menard Gates and Mathis.  Menard Gates and Mathis works with insurance mediator American Specialty create a policy for AACCA that is underwritten by K & K Insurance.

The “Competition Insurance” covers ONLY the following situations/requirements:

·         Attending ONLY Varsity Brands camps, clinics and competitions

·         Travel to and from these activities.

·         DOES NOT COVER practices for these events

Competing is an integral part of the collegiate sideline experience for many of the highly skilled athletes participating on collegiate teams.  As the high school and club level development of the sport creates a higher focus on the advanced skills sets and competitions, those athletes expect to compete as well as cheer.  It is not unreasonable to accept competition as part of the expectations an athletic department might have for its team.  Unless an institution has specifically purchased additional insurance for competitive events, camps or clinics, the team would have to have the “Competition Insurance” in order to be covered.

However, this coverage is not without its holes.  Practices for these camps, clinics or competitions are not covered.  This can be a tricky situation prior to the end of the NCAA basketball regular season.  In this time period, teams could purport to be practicing for performances at games which, fall under the NCAA Catastrophic insurance.  Since the removal of certain skills from the basketball court, it becomes important that the skills being practiced are reflective of the skills allowed to be performed at games.  With the additional specifications of half-time or post game performances for mat-requiring skills, routines involving these skills should have future scheduled performances in order to justify those skills continuing to be practiced.  This is a gray area.

Another area of interest is the conflict of principles with the NCAA and Varsity Brands.  The NCAA requires a safety certification for the coach, but is very specific to point out that there are choices for that certification.  However, the “Competition Insurance” coverage only covers Varsity Brands events and not all camps, clinics and competitions in general.  Furthermore, Varsity Brands requires an AACCA certified coach for teams attending their events.  In essence, they have usurped the NCAA’s intention to remain open to other certification organizations.

“Everything Else Insurance”

This insurance is the Varsity Extended Coverage plan.  It is also brokered by Menard Gates and Mathis.  This insurance plan is the second additional policy available to a cheerleading team on top of the NCAA Catastrophic plan. 

Coverage applies ONLY to the following situations/requirements:

·         Student cheerleaders that are a part of the school’s official team.

·         Must be registered for a Varsity Brands camp, clinic or competition.

·         Athletes are covered during participation for any performances, alumni events or other activities that are not directly related to the Participating School’s intercollegiate athletics program

·         Athletes are covered during practices for Varsity camps and competitions.

o    Coverage of practices for competitions begins 5 days prior to the beginning of fall term and ends the last day of the spring term.

o    Coverage of practices for camps begins 5 days prior to camp and ends on the first day of camp.

·         The activity must be organized and supervised by the official coach/advisor of the institution.

o    The coach/advisor must be certified by AACCA.

o    Activity must follow AACCA rules.

In the course of a season, the cheerleading team will commonly engage in on campus and community events unrelated to the intercollegiate athletics teams they support.  This is a normal expectation the athletics director would have for the program.  The “everything else” coverage insures athletes during these activities.  It also bridges the gap in coverage of practices for competitions.  The continuously identified miscue is the NCAA’s dependence on private industry to provide governance and safety to the highest risk factor activity on college campuses.  In addition, in order for a team to be properly covered for the activities that are common to a team’s season, including competition, the sponsoring institution must purchase two additional policies through Varsity Brands.  These policies force coaches to take the AACCA certification instead of having a choice as the NCAA states and intended.  Nearly to a negligent level, the NCAA ignores the fact that the same company that monopolizes the “collegiate national championships” for cheerleading is also limiting insurance eligibility to only their own events.  They further exploit universities by requiring that a team must attend at least one camp, clinic or competition with Varsity Brands to be eligible for the protection.  While an institution can purchase their own individual insurance to address their cheer teams’ activities, it doesn’t excuse the NCAA’s conscious lack of providing safety for cheer athletes.

The advantage of the “everything else” insurance is the time period that it covers.  Definitive language identifying the start date and the end date create a term which allows teams to be covered in the gray areas created by the NCAA insurance and the “competition” coverage.  For example, a team finished with the basketball team’s season, but who is still practicing skills for competition, can still be covered under the “everything else” plan.  The gray area that is not covered, and not actually all that gray, is being out of season (athletic team’s season is over) and practicing for competition, but compete in a non Varsity Brands competition prior to a later Varsity Brands competition.  It would be impossible to be prepared for the non Varsity Brands competition without devoting some portion of mental and physical preparation to that event.  Thus, there must be a partial if not complete percentage of liability attributable to preparing for the non Varsity event which does not qualify for the “competition” insurance.  This would be an exposed area of risk for the institution in a lawsuit.

The Short of it All

Under the NCAA catastrophic policy (NCAA insurance), teams are only covered at games, pep rallies or practices for those activities as long as they are organized and supervised by official coaches/advisors of the university that are certified by a safety credentialing organization.  Travel sponsored or reimbursed by the institution to and from those events is also covered.

Under the Varsity Extended Plan (compete insurance), teams are covered when participating in Varsity Brands camps, clinics and competitions.  In order to participate in those events, Varsity Brands requires the coach/advisor be AACCA certified.  Thus, the coach’s choice of safety certification programs is eliminated.  The coverage also extends to sponsored travel to and from these events.  Note that it does NOT cover practices for these or other events.

Coverage under the Varsity Catastrophic Plan (everything else insurance) covers all activities not directly related to the intercollegiate athletics teams.  As long as those activities fall within the defined season and are organized and supervised by an AACCA certified coach.  The team must also have registered to attend a Varsity Brands event.  This plan covers the practices for competitions or other events within the defined season as long as the event itself follows AACCA guidelines for safety and is a Varsity Brands event.

A team with only NCAA insurance:
--liable when participating or practicing for anything other than a game or pep rally
                -Should have a halftime or post game performance scheduled with the athletic department in order
                  to be covered after football season.  With the limiting of certain skills to half-time and post-game, there
                  would be no reason to perform those skills in preparation of a game
--Outside of the season of the teams they cheer for, there is no situation the cheerleading team would be
    covered, including tryouts.

A team with NCAA insurance and the Compete insurance:
--liable when practicing for any non Varsity Brands competition, camp or clinic.
--liable when practicing for covered or non covered camps, clinics or competitions, if there are no halftime or post
   game performances scheduled and you are in basketball season. 
--Football season has more leeway because grass surfaces allow for more of the competition oriented skills to be
   performed at games.  The exception is twisting basket tosses.

A team with NCAA insurance, Compete insurance and Everything Else insurance:
--Is  still underinsured if they practice or participate in any non Varsity camps, competitions or clinics.
--potentially liable for any practices prior to the beginning of the first day of classes if the skills being worked on are not “game day” skills, i.e. twisting basket tosses.  In this situation, the Compete and Everything Else insurance are not in effect and the NCAA insurance probably wouldn’t cover a twisting basket injury because it’s not an allowable skill 95% of the time under NCAA insurance.

The Freedom of Acro and Tumbling

You have to look long and hard to find a sport that allows one coach to choose the plays for the other team.  You will have to look even harder to find a sport where each team does exactly the same thing as the other team for 75% of the competition.  Better yet, find me a sport where you learn your material from a video made by the competition producers of the sport.  Put your search off until later because you'll be looking for a while.

The freedom of acrobatics and tumbling is based on the principle of competition.  In competition, the best athletes that execute the best skills in the big moments usually win.  In order to prove you are the best athlete, you must perform the more advanced skills with a high level of perfection. This starts with selecting skills that meet the abilities of a team or individual.  In other words, if you are great at spinning and not so great at flipping, you would incorporate more variations of spinning skills than flipping skills.  In acrobatics and tumbling, coaches have the freedom to choose the skills that best match their team's abilities.  It's pretty simple.  Do what you are good at and get better at the other skills.  Then be good at everything.  As a coach, I would never want to be trapped into doing the same skills all season with no leeway or reason to expand and develop other skills.  I also want to make sure I select skills that I know my athletes will progress and excel through practice and development.  That is my job to determine, not someone else.

Acrobatics and tumbling also allows for coaches to adjust and adapt throughout the season.  Changing up skills and developing more advanced or creative skills throughout the season presents a motivating challenge for the athletes and coaches.  A team should be more capable of executing more difficult skills at the end of their season rather than at the beginning.  This progression and growth is not encouraged unless the opportunity for that growth is present.  If a team is forced to do the same set of skills all season, they only get better at that particular skill and don't necessarily develop as an athlete or as a whole team.  Athletes are not motivated to be good at the same thing.  Athletes are driven my new and constant challenges.

The freedom of acrobatics and tumbling also encourages safety by putting the complete responsibility for athlete safety squarely in the coaches hands.  The coach is responsible for moving the team and inviduals forward according to proper progression, performance and readiness.  While the desire to compete at a higher level is inherent in sports, the freedom to recognize the team's abilities and work within those limits is also an inherent responsibility of the coach.  When competition skills are dictated by the other team's coach and imposed on a program at the beginning of a season, the coach shares responsibility for athlete safety with the organization running the sport.  That coach will naturally try to push atheltes to achieve all the skills required to compete with potentially at the risk of working beyond the appropriate readiness or experience level of the team.  The freedom to focus on the abilities and safety of the team is partially limited when it's a get-this-skill-or-lose situation.  The freedom acro allows the coaching staff to progress the team forward safely is one of the sport's tell tale signs that the focus is on the good of the sport and the athletes invovled.

As an Acro athlete, I would imagine there is a great inner challenge and drive to have the best tumbling pass, the top stunt group or the most amazing basket toss group.  While the fun of being on a team are the times when you depend on each other and come through for each other in group skills, there is always a more individual pride to be fostered as well.  Acrobatics and tumbling allows for national rankings as stunt groups, basket toss groups, group tumblers or solo tumblers.  The freedom to excel at your strength and facilitate that inner drive is encouaraged even in such a great team sport.  If every team is doing the exact same choreography that was predetermined, there can be no individual.  It is only about the team.  That's not a bad thing, but why not have the best of both worlds?  Add to that search list, to find an athlete who wants to do the same stunt all year that every other team is doing.  Now you're really gonna need some time to find all those things.

For the first time in the history of college athletics, competitive cheer or women's sports there is a choice for athletes that embodies the competitive cheer skill set.  For the first time, there is an option to receive a college scholarship and solely compete for your university.  Be a great tumbler, be a phenomenal stunter, be 5'8" 145# and be the star on your team.  Be the number one ranked stunt group in the nation or compete for a national title as a team.  Because of Acro and Tumbling, you are free to experience all these things.

NCATA and USA Cheer Can't Come To the Table

The NCATA will never "merge" "compromise" or "join" USA Cheer.  Why would they? The six universities that created a new sport aren't trying to fit into the cheerleading world.  I've read many arguments, complaints and suggestions that all seem to share one thing in common, the "cheerleading world."  Guess what? This is the the college sports world and cheerleading has no place in it except on the sidelines with pom poms and megaphones.  I know that sounds harsh, but the quicker everyone sees that in college sports, if it acts like an activity, talks like an activity, looks (skirts and poofy hair) like an activity...IT IS AN ACTIVITY.  Why are so many people in the cheerleading world simply blind to the fact that Varsity Brands has worked to preserve cheerleading as an activity?  They govern it, they oversee the safety of it, they dress it, they compete it, they even think they own it... WE ARE CHEERLEADING.  Uhhh, isn't that a little bit insulting that they think they ARE CHEERLEADING.  I guess all the actual cheerleaders have nothing to do with it.
But back to my point.  For years, Varsity has made sure cheerleading was treated and recognized as a activity and not a sport.  All high school and college sports are governed by NFHS, the state associations and the NCAA.  This means loss of control, loss of participation at competitions and thus potential loss of customer loyalty, uniform sales, camp sales and general revenue and profit loss.  If you can't make them compete with you, dress with you and abide by your rules, then you can't keep them from spending their dollars else where.  As a sport, when the school is required to buy uniforms for a team, do you really think a school is going to pay the inflated prices for uniforms that the kids themselves do now? Imagine a school having a choice of the $250 uniform or the $75 plain one.  As you can see, Varsity never wanted cheerleading to be a sport.  Jeff Webb even says in his financial documents filed with the Security Exchange Commission that cheerleading as a sport would have an adverse impact on their profits.

Your gonna tell me that the largest cheerleading company in the world that claims, WE ARE CHEERLEADING, didn't have the power to step forward sooner and make cheerleading a sport?  Seriously? Why all of a sudden does USA Cheer/Varsity Brands want to make cheerleading a sport.  Enter NCATA and Acrobatics and Tumbling.  The NCATA is the governing body of Acrobatics and Tumbling and is the organization that is responsible for bringing competitive cheerleading to sport status at the collegiate level.  This is the organization made up of CHEERLEADERS that simply decided they wanted to get rid of the non competitive elements of cheerleading and promote the athletic ones.  These people are from the same cheerleading world you are from.  They just finally wanted something more specialized on the competitive.  So the NCATA formed, came up with a format and started moving forward.  Webb/Varsity, whose market value is going down (inside sale reference), couldn't stand for someone else to beat him to the punch.  As if what looks like a monopoly wasn't enough, Jdubbs threw STUNT in the mix with it's capital letters and football like refs and whistles.  But that's really only part of the master plan.  As president of the International Cheer Union, the plan is to take over the world.  Having saturated the American market, Varsity has set it's sights on the international arena.  The plan to take the ICU and cheerleading to the international sports world and possibly the Olympics is the ultimate goal.  So it's imperative that he have control over the "sport" in the United States.  But you can't control the sport as a company.  You must do this as a national governing body.  Conveniently, along comes USA Cheer which suddenly claims to be everyone's governing body of cheerleading?  Well I guess it sort of works when you just form in the dark and put all Varsity-loyal  people from various organizations on the USA Cheer board and in office.  Then it "appears" that you have representation/membership from all levels of cheerleading (USASF, High School, AACCA, etc.). Now you fit into the model that the internation sports world is expecting for any sport.  USA Cheer governs the US and belongs to the ICU.  The ICU is the internation governing body forthe sport and they recognize USA Cheer.  The ICU is run by Jeff Webb.

Let's get back to the NCATA and USA Cheer.  I had to take you on a trip for a second.  To bring this all back around, cheerleading should have been made a sport a LONG time ago.  Varisty had the power and opportunity to do it.  They did not because it did not serve their business model at the time.  Now that Varsity basically owns the US cheerleading world (and World's hahaha), they have embarked on the conquest of the internation market.  Foreign countries deal with sports much differently than the US.  They recognize cheerleading as a sport and it's governed by non profit national governing bodies, not companies trying to make a dollar.  So thus, there had to be a different approach to the structure of things in order to make headway in the international market, i.e. USA Cheer, ICU.
For this very reason, the NCATA could never compromise with Varsity.  The NCATA is about the opportunity created for female athletes.  It is about the sport itself and the athletes that are a part of it.  This is not about power or money or some race to make cheerleading a sport or reach the Olympics.  This is about a need for something athletes wanted and a group who is trying to bring it to fruition.  Please raise you hand if you truly believe that is the principle behind STUNT?  If your hand is up, please raise the other one and flap the two like wings.  Because you are dreaming and in your dreams you can just fly away.
Even though Acro and Tumbling is competitive cheerleading, it is a new sport in the eyes of the NCAA.  It is not meant to take away from the structure of the collegiate, high school or all star cheerleading world.  It is simply meant to add another opportunity.  It's not meant to limit males from participation.  It's simply meant to add more opportunities for women in college sports where they are still underrepresented. Everything about this new sport is meant to be for the good of the sport and the participants.  I haven't even mentioned the 2 million plus dollars in college scholarships that have been given out by the universities sponsoring varsity Acro and Tumbling teams.  That is commitment to a sport and to the athletes.  Meanwhile, USA Cheer (Varsity) has probably spent about a fifth of that paying for teams to travel for free, giving away free uniforms and paying entry fees to bribe them to participate in STUNT.  Again, this is just not the way sports work or who the NCATA wants to be associated with.

There is no sitting down with USA Cheer.  There is no compromise. There is no nuetral ground.  Unless USA Cheer wants to drop the copy of A&T they call STUNT, step back and get out of the way of what the NCATA is doing, it's just going to be a battle they will loose with the NCAA.  Unfortunately, most of the people in the cheerleading world have been led to believe the NCATA is the one who did something wrong and is trying to ruin everything.  Meanwhile, Webb and the crew are laughing all the way to the bank.
 If you really want to know the truth, just look at the facts.  In January, then February of the 2009-2010 season, the first two NCATA meets where held. Then at NCA nationals that year, USA Cheer and NCA tried to get the compete only teams to agree to bring the new format into it's own division at NCA that they could run.  Bill Boggs said they would make the NCATA a household name (as if he had the power).  The NCATA university adminstrators wisely told him no thank you.   Then the courtcase with Quinnipiac involved Jeff Webb VOLUNTARILY testifying that cheerleading was NOT a sport, but rather an activity like chess and that it was entertainment. But then he and USA Cheer turned around and started a copy of the sport called STUNT.  They said they had been working on it for 5 years, but USA Cheer just was formed in 2007.  That's not even 5 years at this point a year after they said it.  Have you seen the two models? OMG... there's no comparison.  STUNT is game compared to the SPORT  of Acro and Tumbling.  Then comes the barring of teams from participating in Acro or they can't compete at UCA or NCA nationals.  This is beginning to sound like a hostile company take over.  Oh wait... that's exactly what this attempt is.
For those of you who think the two organization need to sit down at the table and work this out, please answer one question.  Why does a angel sit with a demon to plan building a church.  Perhaps the best way to approach this issueis  to separate the cheerleading world that Varsity Brands has created/controls and the collegiate sports world.  It's like Arnold Swartzeneggar going into politics.  Do you really want and actor to cross into the world of politics? I mean sure, California elected him, but now they are bankrupt and functioning on government bailout money.  Cheerleading and all it's glamour, glitter, bows, poms, uniforms, game day excitment, leadership, athleticism and spirit will still be the same cheerleading world.  There just will be another women's sport on campus.  It's not part of the cheerleading world it's part of the sports world.  Stand for the group that stood for the sport.  There can be no compromise in this situation so pick a side and give your support. I just hope you realize one side charges for that support and on the other side, that support will double and pay off for a female athlete down the road.

NCA College Nationals Gets It Wrong!

Never mind that coaches complained about it.  Never mind that it doesn't make any sense from a competitive aspect.  Never mind that it’s really a safety issue.  But what you should keep in mind is that NCA gets this one completely wrong.

All teams will receive a .1 bonus for adding your mascot to your Game Day performance. 

NCA will reason that the game day portion of camp promotes what should happen at a game.  Time out performances should utilize signs, poms, megaphones, flags and other attention gathering equipment including the school mascot.  Therefore, NCA encouraged the use of the mascot in game day.  However, this was the wrong answer for several reasons.

As if NCA nationals are not expensive enough as it is, now they have basically required teams to bring an additional participant.  That's $508.00 in registration fees for a non camp qualifier (not everyone goes to their camps).  Then you have to tack on another $250 for a flight (unless driving).  In some cases, where an all girl team travels with 20 athletes plus a female coach or two, there is the potential that there has to be an extra room for a male mascot, that's another $750 for the room.  This could even happen with a coed team.  At some universities, where meal stipends are given while traveling there would be that additional expense as well.  As you can see, it's not just an easy thing to incorporate the mascot on the trip.

From a competitive aspect, this also is the wrong move.  Who is going to pay all that additional money for 45 seconds?  It does not justify itself.  Sure the .10 is great, but the expense can be challenging for many teams that do not receive funding for nationals.  The rule is clearly a disadvantage for club teams who are not the school’s athletic department teams.  In their cases, using the university mascot is typically not an option because of their lack of status as the school's official spirit squad.  NCA knows that this is the case and that the bonus is an inherent disadvantage for those teams.  Why allow them to compete if the rules are going to be against them?  This isn't a reward, it's a penalty.

In some cases, schools do not have mascots.  Some universities simply don't have a character that performs at games or represents the university with a physical presence.  What if the typical role of the mascot at games is purposefully limited by the marketing/operations people to interaction only in the stands and other spectator areas?  How then is this representing what the team does at a game if they don't typically use the mascot at a game during timeouts? 

In one specific case, the school is changing from one mascot version to another and does not officially have a character at this time.  Why should teams like this be penalized by being at a .10 disadvantage to other teams.  What if the difference in placing or making finals is that .10?  NCA will say studies that removed game day scores don't affect nearly any prelims results.  So why not just put it as part of the category with "use of props" if it’s not even that important?  It just doesn't make competitive sense to create a near automatic penalty for some teams.

Safety is an issue at hand as well.  There were two cases this past nationals where mascots were involved with near collisions or clearly were in the way of athletes during the game day or team routine.  While the mascot is allowed to leave after game day, it isn't required and the expense of bring the mascot encourages coaches to potentially get the most out of having them there.  The University of Louisville typically uses their mascot in every cheer teams' routines.  Look at the amount of intricate and elite tumbling patterns they have.  It's a wonder there hasn't been a major collision with their mascot.  But typically the safety issues don’t happen with the elite teams, they happen with less experienced teams. 

Basically, the importance of using the mascot is a matter of opinion on NCA's part.  NCA admits that the game day score is not even a significant factor in deciding advancement to finals.  If this is the case, why create a disadvantage and not just put the mascot as part of the props category?  Game day already had developed a negative perception from coaches that it was a burden, unnecessary and simply a bad component to have to incorporate with your actual routine score.  What did NCA finally do?  Just look at the comparative score sheet for each division.  The game day score now is just a standard 11 given to every team unless you have penalties, drops or other glaring mistakes.  It's a "gimme" score now. 

If it’s really that unimportant, then eliminate the .10 mascot penalty!

Scoring Big In The NCATA

As competitive cheerleading grew more and more creative and intricate with the amazing stunts, tumbling patterns and innovative choreography, the scoring systems attempted to adapt as well.  With no unified governing body for all competitive cheer (and there still isn't one), no one scoring system was  in place.  There are at least 5 or so major competitive systems with their own different scoring systems.  It's a wonder that teams can be successful from one company to the next with so many differences in how they are scored.  It's easy to see the difference between first and 5th, but are these systems really accurately separating the teams with similar talents and skill levels?

The true problem is not the varying systems; the real issue is that unlike most other sports, the scoring is overwhelmingly subjective.  The industry boasts technique camps, seminars, clinics and training for all stunting and tumbling skills.  How can there be so much specific technique involved, but so little adherence to that technique with regard to objective measurement.  Gymnastics defines the exact technique for every skill.  Thus, the officials evaluating routines simply give deductions for anything not done exactly according to the defined technique.  This is what is missing from competitive cheer.

Have no fear, the NCATA is here!  This was a no brainer.  When the NCATA evolved competitive cheer as a true sport, the very first scoring principle was to eliminate the subjectivity in officiating.  Borrowing from other judged sports like diving and gymnastics, the concept of exact technique and deductions resulting from variance from that technique was a purposeful and much needed step.
Acrobatic and tumbling teams submit a worksheet for 5 of the 6 events.  The worksheet is a calculation page that the coach lists each of the skills in each heat.  Every skill has a set value.  Sequences or multiple skills receive combined values from each of the component elements.  The resulting value is called the Start Difficulty Value or SDV.  This number solely reflects the difficulty of the skill or sequence of skills being performed.  With an SDV in place, officials do not have to consider difficulty in their score.  They focus solely on the execution of the skill.  In other words, the official can be very critical whether the skill was performed according the exact technique that is defined and expected of that skill and not be cluttered with the consideration of difficulty.  Traditional competitive cheer scoring systems use difficulty to put a performance into a 1 or 2 point range but leave it up to the judge to rate the execution of the skill(s) within that range.  This is where the subjectivity overwhelms the process.  Since the difficulty determines the point range, poorly executed high level skills still leads to starting in a higher point range and actually encourages teams to just "throw" skills regardless of technique.  This can promote injuries from unsafely executed skills.
In acrobatics and tumbling, the SDV or difficulty is the starting point.  An official watches the skill(s) and then assesses deductions for anything that is not precisely executed according to the appropriate technique.  The set deduction is taken off of the SDV.  For example, if a stunt sequence has an SDV of 9.5 and there are 7 mistakes at .05 each, then the deduction will be .35 and the final score will be 9.15 (9.5 - .35).  There is no limit to the number of deductions so the worse the technique is, the lower the score will drop.  With other teams having the same, higher or very close SDV's, every hundredth or tenth of a point is a big deduction.  Thus, teams are encouraged to only perform more difficult skills if they have the technique and ability to do so at a high level of execution which encourages safety.  Teams are very accurately officiated according to set objective standards with extremely little areas of subjective interpretation.  Feet apart, bent knees, incomplete rotations, unlocked arms and other technique issues are clear mistakes.  There's no opinion.  Either feet were apart or they we not.
This old concept of scoring, renewed in acrobatics and tumbling, vastly improved the scoring of skills by eliminating subjectivity.  Finally, there's a clear answer whether a sloppy hard skill beats a well perfected less difficult skill.  After meets, A&T coaches don't have to wonder if the officials liked their style or thought the other team had more difficulty.  The SDV's and the scoring system solve all these subjective issues before one single score is awarded.  Because acrobatics and tumbling teams are varsity scholarshipped sports at their universities, the talent level is very high and similar from team to team within divisions.  Each team will have very similar SDV's.  Now more than ever, in this sport, it comes down to objective evaluation of each teams' execution.  This season's first ever national championship between #1 Oregon and #2 Maryland was decided by twelve hundredths of a point. It wasn't a matter of opinion, it was decided by the numbers.   The NCATA scores big with this system!

STUNT Proves It's Just a Game!

 April 9, 2011- Daytona Beach, FL
STUNT proves that it's just a game.  The University of Louisville, Georgia Southern University, NC State University and Framingham State University all competed in the STUNT national championship in Daytona Beach on Saturday after having competed the previous day in the NCA National Collegiate Cheerleading Championships.  Less that 24 hours separated cheerleading teams from their traditional cheerleading competition and their miraculous overnight transformation into STUNT teams or "varsity sport teams" as USA Cheer would have you believe.  All the same athletes who were merely cheerleaders the day before became athletes the following day and participated in a new sport proving that it is just a name game from one day to the next.
Speaking of games, the 4 team game took place in the Band Shell ampitheatre which was packed wall to wall the previous day from floor seating to the stands but didn't draw enough crowd to completely fill just the stands with the floor seating blocked off.  More people were crammed outside at the free for all Stuntfest activities where hundreds of cheerleaders in an unregulated hodge podge of teams mixing and mingling throw each other around and try new and even illegal skills without mats.  But the crowd that did watch STUNT (mostly fans of the teams in the game) cheered for their teams creating more enthusiasm in just supporting their team than the game itself generated with the redundant and repetitive skills and action.
Referred to as the Final Four, the gimmicky game's format pits 4 teams head to head in various events where teams do exactly the same routines and skills for comparison.  Team's alternate the possesion which gives them the ability to decide which pre-choreographed routine everyone will have to perform.  If a team selects a routine that is too hard for another team, the other team simply forfeits the round.  Time outs, whistles, referees and other gimmicks make the whole thing a bit more a game than.... well, a sport.  It's not even a good game when the other team in some cases can't even make an attempt to play, but just has to forfeit.  At least when a Div. IA football team plays a Div. II or Div. IAA team, the lesser talented team can show up and play the game.  They get a try.  Not in this game.
But then again, that's just my point.... this game!
Congratulations to the teams that participated and worked hard to even qualify for the championships.  Unfortunately, they are being misled that they are participating in something that is a sport.  They are being hoodwinked into a false sense of sport.  In the end, the idea of sport is a great one seemingly stolen from the National Collegiate Acrobatics and Tumbling Association's model.  However, in the end, STUNT proves that its just another cheerleading game, not a sport.