NCAA What would typical women's NCAA routines score under the FIG code?

[OnoNoKomachi]

There are people out there who believe that the women's NCAA should go to an open ended code, probably because of all the complaints about the scoring. I think this has zero chance of actually happening, but I'm curious about what the scores would actually look like if they did that. I'm not familiar with the WAG FIG or NCAA code (contrary to popular belief, that scoring isn't "obvious" to someone who doesn't already know how it works).

 

[Aizheng]

There are people out there who believe that the women's NCAA should go to an open ended code, probably because of all the complaints about the scoring. I think this has zero chance of actually happening, but I'm curious about what the scores would actually look like if they did that. I'm not familiar with the WAG FIG or NCAA code (contrary to popular belief, that scoring isn't "obvious" to someone who doesn't already know how it works).

I think we have to specify: are we talking current routine construction? If so, most gymnasts are missing at least some composition requirements. On bars, for instance, full turn, same bar release, high-to-low and low-to-high are all CRs, and most college routines I see have two of these (since squatting on low bar does not count).

On Floor, I’m not sure if all have a double salto, the other CRs are usually fulfilled, I think (front and back tumbling, leap passage).

Vault would be fine, probably, the 1.5 is now (again) a viable elite vault.

Aleah Finnegan and Emma Malabuyo I think are doing relatively little difficulty in elite competitions with great form, showcasing some of the problems of current judging. Even with lower difficulty, they are unable to get their E-scores over 8.5 on most events.

 

[hmmmm]

The recent gymcastic interview with a long time coach turned judge highlighted that the issue is more about education/experience and the ability to apply the rules.

Sounds like many NCAA judges couldn't handle a FIG code.

 

[irichluck21]

No way can NCAA judges handle an open code.

The problem isn't really the CoP or the routine construction.

The main issue is the judging of execution and actually taking the execution deductions.

The secondary issue is when there are questions about start value, some judges don't know how to calculate the accurate start value.

Third issue is that the best judges aren't judging NCAA because it is not financially worth it they are doing Level 10 meets.

So going open ended would really complicate things and lead to long waits for scores IMO.

NCAA WAG is popular because of the 10.0 system.

There are flaws in the requirements. I would like bars to have a same bar release but not likely to happen.

I think the vault expectations are fine, but I would like a landing grid put in place and mandatory deductions in place.
A yurchenko 1 1/2 with one step should not get a gymnast a 9.900 when gymnast one also stepped off side. It should also get a deduction for off direction.

 

[Denn]

Most scores would be in the 12s and low 13s.

Honestly there are quite a few NCAA routines that should score mid 9s for execution, but elite judges kind of exaggerate or even make up deductions in clean routines because they are afraid to look like they missed something. It's really a bad situation, in my opinion.

I agree with most of what others have said.

 

[Denn]

I will say that an approach like the 2006 men's NCAA code might actually spread scores out without losing the "magical 10s" NCAA fans (and athletes, frankly) love.

1) Cap D-scores at 4.6 with 0.2 bonus for C dismount. One way to get 4.6 is 8Cs, which every NCAA gymnast should be able to do. The best would mix in some harder elements so that they can fewer C skills (A and B instead) and maximize their E-scores. This is also the value of a Yurchenko 1.5, by the way!

2) Add 0.4 for routine construction rules and institute a 0.1 bonus for a signature element or variation.

3) Make the E-score out of 5 for a 10.0 total max. Most gymnasts would get 10.0 start values.

4) Reasonable execution deductions where a "perfect" routine is just as possible as now, but where the smallest deductions aren't unofficial 0.025 deductions but rather 0.1. That would spread scores out by a factor of about 4 or so. So what's now a 9.8 would get a 9.2ish and you would stop seeing this clustering of scores between 9.8 and 10.0

BTW, there are easier A and B-valued same-bar flight skills, even a cut-catch. And honestly, it's time to stop standing on the bar to transition. So gymnasts could fulfill the requirements.

 

[KathySantoni]

Does anyone know if Chusovitina is eligible to compete NCAA? Back when my son was competing Track and Field he had a teammate who joined the Marines after high school then walked on to the team his freshman year at 23.

 

[FrolovasDoubleLayout]

i remember having a conversation with a colleague who is a former BJ, a former NCAA judge and now a L10 judge. We were watching a BB exercise and there were a couple of non-connected connections. We agreed that under WG principles, they were for sure not connected, and they were questionable in L10. I asked if if they would be credited in NCAA - my friend replied, no but they were close enough, so, yes. NCAA judges need to take the execution deductions. If NCAA was judged simply based on USAG L10 rules (ALL rules), then I think things might be a bit more clear.

 

[RedBirdie]

Highly unlikely. She was competing as a professional and accepting prize money back when it was still prohibited, and by understanding is the decision to allow NCAA athletes to accept prize money and stipends up to the value of their training costs is not retroactive.

 

[irichluck21]

Does anyone know if Chusovitina is eligible to compete NCAA? Back when my son was competing Track and Field he had a teammate who joined the Marines after high school then walked on to the team his freshman year at 23.

No.
You are only allowed 1 gap year after graduating high school, after that your years of eligibility begin to count down.

There are a few exceptions.
1. military duty- enrolling in active military duty does not count as countdown on eligibility.
2. religious exception- if you are on an official religious mission.
3. junior college- some cases (if approved by NCAA) do not count their academics or athletics against NCAA eligibility.

The other exception that had been given was once for the Olympics being postponed a year, so any athletes wishing to defer did not have it count as the gap year since it was beyond their control that the Olympics were postponed.

The other exception was the additional "COVID year for 2020-2021 sports" that year did not count against NCAA eligibility due to how unknown the year would be for sports. With many D3 teams not competing, and the Ivy league did not compete etc.

This is why Shilese Jones will not compete in NCAA.
Her original high school graduation year was 2020. The Olympic deferred to 2021 meant that 2021 did not count for Shilese as a gap year.
2022 was her gap year.

Her eligibility countdown officially began in 2023. So 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026-is her last year of eligibility.

I am not sure how it work for international athletes given the differences in ages and high school requirements etc. Which is why Emma Malewski who is 21 is currently a freshman at Clemson.
I would assume every international athlete is reviewed differently than American or even Canadian athletes.

 

[FlipSkippy]

Imagine if Shilese did NCAA? I feel we have been denied her greatness in Elite and NCAA.