Florida's Dominance

Throughout the season, until a couple of weekends ago, Florida seemed unstoppable.  With big skills, big execution and stars galore, it seemed as if the Gators biggest challenger was themselves.  Their loss at Arkansas served to give the rest of the NCAA hope.  In the NCAA and the current code modifications, it is not all about difficulty.  There is a minimum set of difficulty required and very few tools the judges can employ to penalize stock or "safe" routines.  It comes down to execution, form. amplitude and composition.  A step is a step, and a fall is a fall, no matter the skill.  Thus when a team makes a few mistakes, it allows others to close the gap.  It also enables teams throughout the country, through hard work and intense focus, to have competitive squads capable of scoring a 196 as a team.   

A New Generation of Stars

This season, we've lost several big name, top level gymnasts to graduation like Susan Jackson of LSU, or others due to injury, like Vanessa Zamarripa of UCLA.  But a whole new generation of stars is starting to emerge from the ranks.  Florida is loaded with many of the names, from last year's superstar newcomers like Ashanee Dickerson and Marissa King to this year's stars Alaina Johnson and Mackenzie Caquatto.  And the nation's AA leader comes from Penn State sophomore Sharaya Musser, who was a standout at the club level as a L10.  Other stars are coming from rising Top 6 teams like Oregon State (Olivia Vivian and Leslie Mak) and Stanford (Ashley Morgan).   

Judging Uniformity

For every two steps forward, we sometimes seem to take a step back.  There has been strong progress towards uniformity in evaluation, though the Judges Assignment System and the numerous education and training programs.  But with the proliferation of web-based video, tv broadcasts, and streaming media, errors and mistkes are getting broader exposure.  We've even seen meets with missed major deductions like falls or extra swings.  In the past, these mistakes were rarely proliferated beyond the walls of the gym, let alone broadcasted nationwide.  But dramatic examples aside, we are still seeing some level of variation in judging evaluations.  In some meets, only obvious steps and wobbles are being deducted on BB, while in others, finer points of composition, tempo and artistry are seemingly being taxed. 

Fans have increasingly noticed delays in scoring, as "less strict" and "more strict" judges on a single event have scores that are too far apart.  It is a nationwide problem, with variances from judge to judge, meet to meet, event to event, and region to region.  Fortunately, in the post-season, this problem is mitigated by a larger field of judges per event (four instead of two) and a larger geographical diversity of the most qualified judges.  And there is unquestionably much progress that has been made on judging uniformity.  In the past, we saw much more dramatic swings as teams travelled from their home location to out of their area, and saw their scores plummet or rise three points or more in a single week.  This is much less common, and for that, we should all be glad.

Routine Conformity

Stricter evaluation and a code that is perhaps becoming not demanding enough (it is actually easier than a few years ago) is leading many teams to "defeature" their routines for fear of deduction.  This is leading to a certain "sameness" in the composition and skill choice.  Deductions for lack of variety in connections and for artistry are not always taken.  Thus, athletes with original or rare skills (and not always the most difficult ones) are beginning to standout.  This is true not only with the fans, but with the judges as well.  Take a quick glance at the top 10 ranked individuals on UB and BB; the ranking is led by athletes competing routines that are far from "stock", in most cases. 

Sometimes It Takes Time

Although the influx of newcomers is exciting, and sometimes it works out well (see:  Florida, Utah), at other schools, it is veterans that hold sway.  A number of teams that have improved on their preseason rank (like Oregon State, Boise State, Washington, Iowa) all feature very strong cores of experienced returnees.  Some teams that have struggled, especially in the first part of the season, have had to rely heavily on frosh and less experienced returnees.  There is sometimes an adjustment period, as the execution and consistency requirements of NCAA competition and the rigors of a college education can be a difficult combination for any young woman.   And, sometimes injury and illness play a role and impact the fortunes of the entire team.  Fans and parents can take heart, however, as teams can quickly rebound from a difficult season and be back contending for a top spot the next season.

Race to Regionals

These last two weeks are literallly a race.  Teams are seeking to make the Regional competition or earn a certain seeding for post-season competition.  All teams must qualify to the post-season Regional competition by placing in the Top 36 teams, as ranked by the Regional Qualifying Score (RQS).   The RQS is computing by taking a team's top three AWAY scores and then collecting the next three highest scores.  The HIGH score is dropped, and the remaining scores are averaged.  The Top 18 are assigned to Regionals by a Seeding Committee, based on some established criteria.  First off, host teams that are ranked are assigned to their own home location.  Herein lies the problem.  Most of this year's hosts (Oregon State, Georgia, Bama, Michigan, OU, DU) are now ranked in the Top 18, let alone the Top 12.  Normally, teams are assigned to regions based on "trios" of rankings:  1-12-13; 2-11-14; 3-10-15; 4-9-16; 5-8-18, 6-7-18.  However, with so many teams in the Top 12 with a "host" designation, this normal criteria will have to be broken.  The rules say that the higher ranked team gets preference, and that "Top 12" pairs should be exchanged with the next highest ranked teams.  With so many teams in the Top 12 (currently five of the six), the Committee is going to have a large challenge on its hand.  After the Top 18 are assigned, the remainder are assigned to Regionals based on geographical proximity. 

Luck of the... Draw

With the aforementioned "Race to the Regionals", there is an element of "luck" involved.  Certain Regional fields are invevitably considered tougher than others.  For instance, since the top two from each Regional advance to Nationals, the natural pairing of "Teams 6-7" is always considered to be a tough one for the a lower ranked team to break up.  It usually is considered tougher to upset higher ranked teams, especially if there is an 11 place difference in ranking (however, this did happen in 2006).  Also, sometimes when a talented team like UCLA is struggling with consistency or injury, they can suddenly grow stronger in the post season.  If they remain ranked in spots 7 to 12, they will form a formidable opponent to any team seeking to upset a higher ranked team and make it to Nationals.  The teams ranked 13 to 15 are especially keen on knocking off a higher ranked opponent.  That task gets more difficult if a team ranked 7 to 12 is also a host school.  Teams tend to perform better at home, due to familiarity with the equipment and the support of the local crowd.  Thus, there is an element of luck for any team "on the bubble" of making Nationals.   The last time a team not ranked (by RQS) in the Top 15 at the end of the season made Nationals was in 2006, and the last time a team that was not ranked in the Top 18 made Nationals was in 2004.  In 2004, however, it took nearly a 196.99 RQS to make the Top 12, and high scores were much more prevalent.