It’s just that literally everyone has “NCAA level difficulty”. I’m wishing they would make the code harder, so it would be a real achievement to have a 10 start value (and solid execution) on every event.
Class of 2024 Commits
- Thread starter cftmoonlight79
- Start date
Talk Gymnastics With Us!
Join Today... Members See FEWER Ads
Passion
Member
- Feb 2, 2021
- 2,389
- 4,244
I wish they would go full FIG code and have real judging.
makam
Defender
- Feb 23, 2021
- 2,981
- 4,743
Requiring real risk to get up to a 10 on some events would help with score creep. Like, you can watch and all the big name gymnasts are gonna get at least a 9.9 for a clean routine. No point in having any of the numbers before 8 since no one ever sees them. So maybe it should be on a 2.0 system… 
Obviously you don’t want them injuring themselves since this is their sport, not their job at that point, but UB especially could benefit from separating the great from the okay.
Obviously you don’t want them injuring themselves since this is their sport, not their job at that point, but UB especially could benefit from separating the great from the okay.
I don’t know if it’s possible to create a code the coaches won’t figure out how to game. The nature of NCAA routine composition is very similar to the old Romanian philosophy of maximizing scoring potential with the least amount of risk possible. I agree the bar for reaching a 10 absolutely has to be raised, but even then, I think the coaches will always gravitate to the compositions/skill choices that help their athletes score competitively more consistently.
Doing unnecessary/risky/simple-but-beautiful to demonstrate mastery of the apparatus and virtuosity when it may be counter-productive score wise - this is core to the sport in my mind, and I feel somewhat conflicted seeing athletes compete below their skill level to maximize their score, like it’s a betrayal of the ideals of the sport somehow.
It’s not that deep, but for example, Sloane Blakely using a front aerial-bhs as her acro series when she’s had a nice punch front as an elite is a bit disheartening.
I imagine most coaches would love to let their athletes push their boundaries since that’s what the sport is about, but they have to deal with the reality that winning, by any means, is paramount in the world of college sports, and when the top teams are getting massive scores every week, you do what you gotta to stay competitive.
Thinking about the shap+bail (sometimes unconnected), squat-on, E dismount stock composition, I really miss Priess’ 3 release routine. I love that she threw in the Markelov for no other reason than she did it so well.
Doing unnecessary/risky/simple-but-beautiful to demonstrate mastery of the apparatus and virtuosity when it may be counter-productive score wise - this is core to the sport in my mind, and I feel somewhat conflicted seeing athletes compete below their skill level to maximize their score, like it’s a betrayal of the ideals of the sport somehow.
It’s not that deep, but for example, Sloane Blakely using a front aerial-bhs as her acro series when she’s had a nice punch front as an elite is a bit disheartening.
I imagine most coaches would love to let their athletes push their boundaries since that’s what the sport is about, but they have to deal with the reality that winning, by any means, is paramount in the world of college sports, and when the top teams are getting massive scores every week, you do what you gotta to stay competitive.
Thinking about the shap+bail (sometimes unconnected), squat-on, E dismount stock composition, I really miss Priess’ 3 release routine. I love that she threw in the Markelov for no other reason than she did it so well.
Yarotska
Member
- Feb 8, 2021
- 345
- 428
They could start with reducing CV for D+D transitions to .1. That would require an extra tenth of bonus, but that would just make them do a toe-on/clear hip/stalder into the Shap variation to get that tenth back.
What??
Last edited:
My list of changes for NCAA Uneven Bars:
1.) Require .7 bonus for 10.0 start value.
2.) Only give .2 connection value in this instance: [Flight as 1st skill, excluding shaposh with extra swing before the next skill] + [Turn, or same bar release, or dismount, or flight to HB - excluding flight skills that initiate from handstand].
Give .1 cv to C + B + C connection (not extra bonus, just cv in cases where 3 skills together don’t otherwise get bonus) and to C + eagle giant (again, not extra bonus in the case of D + eagle giant already getting it). Remove cv for Giant 1/1 + C dismount (still counts as an up-to-level dismount sequence).
3.) Reduce the value of Toe-on and Toe 1/2 (unless they are connected out of a flight skill), and Maloney, Van Leeuwen, Ray II, and Stalder without turn, and Pike Jaeger. Increase the value of all same-bar releases from eagle grip.
4.) Remove the E-rating cap on skills and change the ratings of most dismounts to mirror the elite code, with these exceptions: Flyaway 2.0/2.5/3.0 → D/E/F; Stalder and Clear-hip front pike 1/2 → D; Toe-on front 1.0/1.5 → D/E; Double Pike full → E. Double Tuck (B) will only be allowed as dismount when connected from a release or E-skill.
5.) Require a flight skill from LB to HB and deduct the squat-on unless it’s done as a mount or shows a clear hop onto the LB; also deduct the Toe-circle stand-on-LB unless it shows good back posture and clear hop from LB to HB (but neither of these skills count as flight).
6.) Require a C skill starting and ending on HB. “Cal hop” = B, but given 20 degree allowance for handstand. Giant to full split in handstand phase = D.
7.) Increase the value of some bar transitions (Alt = D, Stalder shoot to HB with deep bend and high amplitude = D, Clear-hip shoot to HB = D, Hechts = D, Zgoba = E, Zuchold = E, Strong and Bhardwaj and Seitz and Komova = F) and remove the current bonus for E transitions.
8.) Require 5 skills rated at least B (regular giants and cast handstand should just be A skills) - no Suni you can’t just do one quick sequence and then a dismount, you’ll have to throw in at least an extra Toe-on somewhere.
Sample routines for 10.0 start value:
Peng-Peng Lee:
Ray II
Bhardwaj
Toe-on + Van Leeuwen
Double Layout
Madison Kocian:
Chow + Pak
Chow 1/2
Stalder + Double Tuck full
Anastasia Webb:
Pak
Stalder + Van Leeuwen
Stalder 1/2 + Double Front 1/2
Lori Strong:
Jump over LB to HB mount
Giant 1/2 + Jaeger
Strong + (“A” transition to HB)
Giant 1/1 + Double Pike
Mykayla Skinner:
Ray II
Bail + Toe-shoot
Toe-on + Double Double Tuck
Kyla Ross:
Toe 1/1 + Maloney + Bail + Toe-shoot
Giant 1/1
Double Layout
Trinity Thomas:
Clear-hip shaposh (or Jump to LB handstand + Maloney) + Clear-hip + Pak
(Clear-hip + Van Leeuwen) or Khorkina
Double Layout
Morgan Hurd:
(Ricna or Church) + Pak
Cast 1/2 + Stalder shoot
Toe-on (becomes Stalder if an earlier cv was missed) + Double Tuck full
1.) Require .7 bonus for 10.0 start value.
2.) Only give .2 connection value in this instance: [Flight as 1st skill, excluding shaposh with extra swing before the next skill] + [Turn, or same bar release, or dismount, or flight to HB - excluding flight skills that initiate from handstand].
Give .1 cv to C + B + C connection (not extra bonus, just cv in cases where 3 skills together don’t otherwise get bonus) and to C + eagle giant (again, not extra bonus in the case of D + eagle giant already getting it). Remove cv for Giant 1/1 + C dismount (still counts as an up-to-level dismount sequence).
3.) Reduce the value of Toe-on and Toe 1/2 (unless they are connected out of a flight skill), and Maloney, Van Leeuwen, Ray II, and Stalder without turn, and Pike Jaeger. Increase the value of all same-bar releases from eagle grip.
4.) Remove the E-rating cap on skills and change the ratings of most dismounts to mirror the elite code, with these exceptions: Flyaway 2.0/2.5/3.0 → D/E/F; Stalder and Clear-hip front pike 1/2 → D; Toe-on front 1.0/1.5 → D/E; Double Pike full → E. Double Tuck (B) will only be allowed as dismount when connected from a release or E-skill.
5.) Require a flight skill from LB to HB and deduct the squat-on unless it’s done as a mount or shows a clear hop onto the LB; also deduct the Toe-circle stand-on-LB unless it shows good back posture and clear hop from LB to HB (but neither of these skills count as flight).
6.) Require a C skill starting and ending on HB. “Cal hop” = B, but given 20 degree allowance for handstand. Giant to full split in handstand phase = D.
7.) Increase the value of some bar transitions (Alt = D, Stalder shoot to HB with deep bend and high amplitude = D, Clear-hip shoot to HB = D, Hechts = D, Zgoba = E, Zuchold = E, Strong and Bhardwaj and Seitz and Komova = F) and remove the current bonus for E transitions.
8.) Require 5 skills rated at least B (regular giants and cast handstand should just be A skills) - no Suni you can’t just do one quick sequence and then a dismount, you’ll have to throw in at least an extra Toe-on somewhere.
Sample routines for 10.0 start value:
Peng-Peng Lee:
Ray II
Bhardwaj
Toe-on + Van Leeuwen
Double Layout
Madison Kocian:
Chow + Pak
Chow 1/2
Stalder + Double Tuck full
Anastasia Webb:
Pak
Stalder + Van Leeuwen
Stalder 1/2 + Double Front 1/2
Lori Strong:
Jump over LB to HB mount
Giant 1/2 + Jaeger
Strong + (“A” transition to HB)
Giant 1/1 + Double Pike
Mykayla Skinner:
Ray II
Bail + Toe-shoot
Toe-on + Double Double Tuck
Kyla Ross:
Toe 1/1 + Maloney + Bail + Toe-shoot
Giant 1/1
Double Layout
Trinity Thomas:
Clear-hip shaposh (or Jump to LB handstand + Maloney) + Clear-hip + Pak
(Clear-hip + Van Leeuwen) or Khorkina
Double Layout
Morgan Hurd:
(Ricna or Church) + Pak
Cast 1/2 + Stalder shoot
Toe-on (becomes Stalder if an earlier cv was missed) + Double Tuck full
Last edited:
Man way too much effort. I mean no offense, but at the end of the day, all this sounds like is some ivory tower academics talking about some obscure theoretical formula. The best teams are still winning the competition. Fans (the majority at least) are enjoying the sport and cheering their teams. Can there be some tweaks? Sure, but until a team wins that clearly is sub par there is no need to up the difficulty in wholesale.
Uneven Bar routines in NCAA are mostly boring and have become extremely similar. The few people who do real routines get no reward for it. 10-30 years ago there was far more difficulty and creativity in NCAA routines, it didn’t use to be this boring. There’s no reason the current athletes can’t up their level.
I’m not sure what you mean by “obscure formula” - there’s already a very long list of rules; this just modifies what already exists. It’s not more complicated than any elite code since the late 90’s.
I’m not sure what you mean by “obscure formula” - there’s already a very long list of rules; this just modifies what already exists. It’s not more complicated than any elite code since the late 90’s.
Meaning the average student doesnt know some obscure theoretical formula unless they are a PhD student in that particular area. In the same vein, talking about minutia about E and D scores and connection values and changing values is just not something that the average fan is very educated on. They watch the gymnastics, they enjoy the artistry, the skills, even if they are the same as what they were doing 10-30 years ago. The right teams win, people are happy.
While technically you are correct, and in spirit I agree with you, its just not a big deal.
While technically you are correct, and in spirit I agree with you, its just not a big deal.
The average fan doesn’t need to know the code; they already don’t. Routines that are more exciting and diverse would make the event more interesting and increase spectator appeal. Everyone can see the difference between a Peng-Peng Lee routine and the dull ones that have become the norm. Growing the viewership of NCAA is always a good thing, don’t you think?
Spoken like a closet academic lol. You know what the average fan needs. You know what they would like more. Again, get out of your paradigm. Obviously, you are in the 1 percentile of knowledge of gymnastics history and code. I am telling you, the average fan, cough cough, just sees a Peng Peng routine and say “Wow that was cool” as long as she doesnt wobble and sticks her landing. They are not going to appreciate the nuances of a triple series or double wolf turn or whatever skill. Its like NASCAR, the average fan just knows when there is a crash. As long as there is no crash, its all good and fun.
The other thing too, while its all great to think about bumping the difficulty so that it more closely matches elite, the lion share of college gymnasts are average to above average L10s with no elite experience (save the top top teams). Doing something like that is going to have extreme impact on those middle to bottom programs and reduce overall competition which we definitively know stifles interest and viewership in a sport. Think the NFL, NBA, MLB, NCAA Football, all are making rules to increase parity which increases interest in all teams and increases viewership.
The other thing too, while its all great to think about bumping the difficulty so that it more closely matches elite, the lion share of college gymnasts are average to above average L10s with no elite experience (save the top top teams). Doing something like that is going to have extreme impact on those middle to bottom programs and reduce overall competition which we definitively know stifles interest and viewership in a sport. Think the NFL, NBA, MLB, NCAA Football, all are making rules to increase parity which increases interest in all teams and increases viewership.
I don’t agree with this idea of the average viewer not caring if routines are boring, as long as they are clean. There’s a big difference in response, people want to be impressed and think what they are watching is worth their time. The demise of professional shows across several different athletic performance arts is largely because they coasted on legacy and took the audience for granted.
You made a NASCAR comparison: people watch because cars go fast, the peak of vehicle speed. There’s a reason why go-cart races are not popular in comparison. NCAA gymnastics, while benefitted by social media, is far from being as popular as it could be. The routines need to be more interesting to grow the viewer base.
Most of the athletes are capable of more. They were doing it 10-30 years ago and it’s more possible now with advances in physical therapy and the ease of video replay learning. The reason it’s not happening is because the code and judging customs became more linear, instead of focusing on the overall impression of a routine. If more difficulty is needed for the 10.0, and more options are allowed to get there, the landscape will improve.
You made a NASCAR comparison: people watch because cars go fast, the peak of vehicle speed. There’s a reason why go-cart races are not popular in comparison. NCAA gymnastics, while benefitted by social media, is far from being as popular as it could be. The routines need to be more interesting to grow the viewer base.
Most of the athletes are capable of more. They were doing it 10-30 years ago and it’s more possible now with advances in physical therapy and the ease of video replay learning. The reason it’s not happening is because the code and judging customs became more linear, instead of focusing on the overall impression of a routine. If more difficulty is needed for the 10.0, and more options are allowed to get there, the landscape will improve.
I will say my husband is a casual fan of the sport at best, and he definitely notices when routines are unique, interesting, and hard. I think it’s underselling the instincts and intelligence of the average fan to think they just see a relatively clean but stock routine and think it’s great or better than the routines that have a bit more to them.
Bumping this back up since Level 10 nationals were over the weekend. Here's where to top Class of 2024 finishers are going to the fall:
Senior F
1. Elle Mueller, 39.175 Oklahoma
2. Rylee Guevara, 39.075 Ohio State
3. Anna Flynn Cashion, 38.950 Kentucky
3. Madison Gustitus, 38.950 San Jose State
5. Kelsey Slade, 38.875 Oklahoma
Senior E
1. Macy McGowan, 39.100 UCLA
2. Allie Kaempfer, 38.950 Penn State
3. Aliyah Kelly, 38.800 Northern Illinois
4. Lily Pederson, 38.725 Oklahoma
5. Elizabeth Leary, 38.700 Penn State
Senior D (there was a tie for 4th, but Bradley Burton is a 2025 grad, so she's not reflected here and the 6th place finisher is)
1. Kailin Chio, 39.375 LSU
2. Avery Neff, 39.325 Utah
3. Harlyn Tomlin, 38.850 Georgia
4. Audrey Sanger, 38.700 Michigan
6. Sophia Kaloudis, 38.600 Oregon State
Senior F
1. Elle Mueller, 39.175 Oklahoma
2. Rylee Guevara, 39.075 Ohio State
3. Anna Flynn Cashion, 38.950 Kentucky
3. Madison Gustitus, 38.950 San Jose State
5. Kelsey Slade, 38.875 Oklahoma
Senior E
1. Macy McGowan, 39.100 UCLA
2. Allie Kaempfer, 38.950 Penn State
3. Aliyah Kelly, 38.800 Northern Illinois
4. Lily Pederson, 38.725 Oklahoma
5. Elizabeth Leary, 38.700 Penn State
Senior D (there was a tie for 4th, but Bradley Burton is a 2025 grad, so she's not reflected here and the 6th place finisher is)
1. Kailin Chio, 39.375 LSU
2. Avery Neff, 39.325 Utah
3. Harlyn Tomlin, 38.850 Georgia
4. Audrey Sanger, 38.700 Michigan
6. Sophia Kaloudis, 38.600 Oregon State
Trending Discussions
-
WCC: Patrick Kiens & Daymon Jones take reins as Laurent Landi moves on
Either WCC had a going away party way in advance, or Laurent is wrapping up this week. There's...- RedBirdie
- Replies: 52
-
-
Russia-Ukraine War: Effects on Gymn World
Here’s hoping everyone in Ukraine is safe right now. Does anybody have any word?- rlayt
- Replies: 1,395
-
British WAG (and MAG!) talk
Thought it might be fun to discuss all things GB WAG. Saw this on Jennifer Gadirova: This...- Doug1233
- Replies: 3,273
-
Preview of 2025 NCAA Season - SEC conference
The NCAA season is less than a month away, I think it's safe to say that the next NCAA title...- cuuf
- Replies: 9
-
Talk Gymnastics With Us!
Join Today... Members See FEWER Ads
Similar threads
Upcoming events
-
Feb 2020252025 Turnier der Meister - Cottbus World CupWorld Cup Series
-
Feb 2120252025 Winter CupNational Competition - USA
-
Mar 520252025 L'International GymnixWAG Juniors and Seniors