Posted on 30 January 2020 by admin

A discussion is heating back up about whether or not NCAA Men’s Gymnastics will switch from the current F.I.G./open-ended scoring system back to the “10” system. To be fair, the system many coaches are calling for is a “10-conversion” system, but nevertheless, to the naked eye, it still looks like the old system. Immediately after the 2019 season ended, the coaches discussed changing the scoring system starting in the 2020 season, but that soon died down due to lack of support.

Apparently, a majority of coaches are now in favor of the “10” system. So far this season, a weekly breakdown of scores using a “10” conversion table has been taking place behind the scenes. Here is what that looks like:

Oklahoma University Head Coach Mark Williams has been outspoken in his opposition to making changes to the scoring system, and he addresses that in an open letter to gymnastics community:

Men’s NCAA gymnastics is currently considering a conversion system to return to the 10.0 scoring system. This would include limiting the range of difficulty and execution deductions taken, to fit into the 10.0 formula. Though proponents hope this would lead to an increase in fan excitement and attendance, I fear that not only will it not bring more fans to our sport, but result in a host of unintended consequences.



I fundamentally disagree with any conceit that pretends coaches wouldn’t adjust athlete’s routines under a 10.0 system. I know I would—because my job is to maximize the potential success of my collegiate squad, and once you’ve maxed out your difficulty, why would you risk additional skills which can only incur greater deduction? That is absolutely and irrefutably how any conversion system, which by necessity requires a defacto difficulty maximum, would work in a real world situation. A conversation that doesn’t take this into account is fundamentally unserious. You can not Monday morning quarterback by converting scores NOT earned under a this system, and pretend things would work exactly the same had the 10.0 conversion been in place.



Additionally, if a handful of athletes did continue to do difficulty beyond the conversions limits, routines with visible errors could be regularly able to earn “perfect” 10.0 scores. Something very hard to explain to the casual fans we say we’re hoping to attract.

Extending the difficulty range within the conversion to avoid the scenario of imperfect sets behind deemed perfect, would significantly lower average scores. What evidence is there that scoring a 9.2 for a hit set is somehow more understandable and acceptable to fans, particularly those NCAA women’s fans who are used to seeing women’s teams score 9.8 or better on every non-fall routine?



I’d argue that, in general, audiences at women’s meets are no better informed about the intricacies of gymnastics judging than those at men’s, and understanding a 14.1 denotes a better routine than a 12.5 is just as easy, if not easier, to explain than a 9.95 vs a 9.9.



After the downgrading of difficulty inevitably occurs, up and coming juniors, who have, by the way, never competed under a 10.0 system in their lives, could very well lose all incentive to pursue collegiate careers. The fear isn’t that just one or two athletes would be effected, but a wide swath of juniors, a large percentage of whom have hopes and dreams of intentional competition. Not all will achieve that goal, of course, but it’s what most are striving towards, and when they’re deciding on college at 17 they are far away from their eventual peak in our sport. At that point in young lives, such dreams should be nurtured and encouraged.



Right now, NCAA Gymnastics is a direct path to national and international-level competition. Keeping it that way should be important, not just for programs produce Olympians, but for every single team that can offer a high school-age gymnast the chance to see where his athletic dreams might take him, while also getting an education that will set him up for life after sport.



It’s not wild speculation to say juniors may forego college if we stray from FIG scoring—it’s what actually happened the last time we tried it. In the 1990s we modified FIG scoring in order, we hoped, to enhance parity across the NCAA and add excitement to the sport. (Sound familiar?) It didn’t seem like a dramatic modification at the time, but the reality was that the changes we made vastly reduced the chances of our NCAA athletes succeeding outside NCAA competition, which led to future athletes bypassing college to train. To be honest, as someone around then, I can’t believe we’re now considering making the exact same mistake again. I guess it’s true when they say that those who ignore history, are doomed to repeat it.



Many might not know, but the men’s NCAA Championships only continue to be contested because we have an Olympic sport minimum sponsorship exemption from the NCAA. Deviating from Olympic scoring is illogical given the tenuous state of our existence. Our continuation as a sport is entirely predicated on NCAA men’s gymnastics being a critical component of Team USA’s Olympic aspirations, yet we want to turn our backs on the very thing that’s keeping us alive? It makes no sense.



There is much we can learn from the women’s side of our sport, but complaints from fans about their scoring are as common as compliments. I, too, look at the attendance of top teams in awe, and will continue to strive to match those heights, but women’s gymnastics is undeniably more popular in the U.S. than men’s. That’s always been true, and ignoring cultural reality is incompatible with critical thinking.



What we should be looking to replicate from the women’s side of the sport is their relentless promotion, how they market their meets and make them more watchable. Less downtime, more hype, easy score availability and lots of online coverage. We need to be engaging with the community, and making attending our events more exciting for young fans.



There seems to be an impression that attendance at men’s meets has declined due to our scoring system—an idea that has no basis in fact. (At Oklahoma, for instance, our attendance has increased year every year since FIG scoring began.) As someone involved with the sport at the collegiate level since 1976 as an athlete, assistant and now head coach, it feels like we’re making decisions based on nostalgia for a time that never even existed. There was no mass exodus of fans due to a digit change on the scoreboard, and fans won’t suddenly appear to see a different set of numbers either.



Marketing is what our sport lacks, and that won’t be fixed by a scoring change. The diehard fans we have now struggle to follow our sport due to lack of easily available information. That’s what we need to change! I’m an NCAA coach who knows where to look, and trying to follow competitions live is often impossible, even for me.



Scoring doesn’t attract fans; marketing and promotion do. Live, online scoring should be readily available for every single meet, every single weekend. That should be augmented by tv-style livestreams, whenever television broadcasts aren’t available for meets. Streams with commentary, if possible, and that follow more than just the home team, allowing people to get to know and follow our sport from wherever they are.



Accessibility of information, and increased engagement, is what will bring in more fans, and allow them to engage with each other. Women’s gymnastics has been greatly boosted by their social media engagement, and while there’s no publicity that’s free, the Internet has made streaming and real-time communication about as close to no-cost as any promotional tool can be.



While there is no evidence that non-gymnastics fans will start showing up because a meet is won by .1 tenth rather than 1 point, there’s plenty that shows outreach and marketing puts butts in seats.

Because our college coaching community is small, it can also be insular. We need to hear from, and listen to, existing fans, judges, junior athletes, coaches, and parents—the core of our sport—before we begin making radical changes to our scoring system. As it stands, NCAA men’s gymnastics is too small in number to be our own ecosystem, and ignoring the gymnastics world outside of collegiate competition is not a realistic option.



I’m all for new ideas, but converting our scores in hopes of fan engagement is NOT a new idea. We’ve tried it before and it unquestionably harmed our sport. I’m not in favor of making the same mistake twice.



Mark Williams – University of Oklahoma, Men’s Gymnastics, Head Coach

Thanks, Coach Williams. We could not possibly agree more with your sentiments! A relatively silent majority of athletes, parents and fans opposed to switching back to the “10” system exists. We need to hear from you!

CHECK OUT OUR FACEBOOK PAGE!

Be Sociable, Share!



















Tags | college gymnastics, gymnastics, men's college gymnastics, Men's Gymnastics, NCAA Men's Gymnastics