Well another season has concluded, full of thrills, surprises and exciting competition.  As we head into Summer 2016, let's recap the year and take a look at some things we'd like to see for next season.

Final Four:  A thrilling Super Six final really became the "Final Four" as OU, LSU, Bama and Florida battled in one of the finest Super Six Finals in history.  With each team avoiding major mistakes, just a few steps and bobbles became the difference between first and fourth.  Congratulations to all four teams for a hard fought final, and of course most of all, the champion OU Sooners.  OU started the year with an early loss to LSU and stayed consistent and clean to win the title.  While other squads may have shown more difficulty on the Floor, the Sooners stayed true to their formula of clean execution and reaped the rewards.  

A Fitting End:  In a fitting end to a fantastic gymnastics career, Bridget Sloan of Florida took home the AA title and tied for the crowns on UB and BB.  In what should be forevever known as a "Sloan Sweep", she finished her career as a World AA Champion, USA AA Champion and NCAA AA Champion.  It may be a long time --- and perhaps never --- that we will see an athlete repeat such a feat.   

Queen McGee:  In perhaps one of the least controversial floor wins in NCAA history, Nina McGee of DU took the floor title (video).  The entire arena stopped to watch her routine, with athletes from other squads and the entire audience on her side.  She drilled a double layout and the rest was history.   What's even more remarkable?  Without her glasses, she says she can only see colors and shapes. 

Parity Has Arrived:  A rising level of talent from the club system, hard work and good coaching, coupled with a rule system that encourages parity led to an exciting season.  We saw teams like Cal and Minnesota return to the NCAAs, and teams like EMU and Washington, both unranked in the Preseason Top 25, finished in the Top 18.  GWU, also unranked in the preseason, finished in the Top 25 while Bowling Green qualified to Regionals for the first time since 1991.  Regional finishes were close, with over 20 teams in contention for the 12 spots at Nationals.  Michigan, after a fast start that saw them earn the #1 ranking at one point early in the season, stumbled and didn't make Nationals.  The Cal Bears battled to edge Boise State and Kentucky for a spot at Nationals in a fierce battle at Regionals, and then went on to finish 7th.  The gap this season between #7 and #22 was, in essence, just a few tenths.     

Unintended Impacts of Early Recruiting:  For the past several years, the Top 20 or so programs have been in a race to score commitments at an earlier and earlier age.  The current set of scholarship frosh at the Top 20 programs predominantly committed during their freshman and sophomore years of high school.  The inherent risk of early recruiting is that it is difficult to predict how a gymnast will evolve and develop over the course of the four or so years between her commitment and her first year of competition.  In some cases, gymnasts that make rapid improvements after their sophomore year of high school may find that many top programs have already committed their scholarships.  As a result, these "late bloomers" are committing to schools that have traditionally finished lower in the rankings or have had scholarships become available later in the cycle.  On the other hand, some athletes that committed early have seen their athletic progress stalled or even set back through unfortunate injuries, burnout, growth spurts, and the process of maturation.  As a result, we're starting to see some impacts on parity, with a rising level of talent seeing a greater dispersion throughout the country.  Coupled with unexpected changes with early commitments, more teams than ever are fielding lineups of comparable difficulty.  While we don't anticipate that top schools will reserve scholarships for developing talent, we are seeing a general stabilization in the early recruiting trend.   

Code Changes:  It's an in-between cycle for major code changes, and thus, we really can't hope for any dramatic changes to the NCAA Code Modifications.  The NCAA Code Modification are adjustments made to the underlying USA Gymnastics Junior Olympics code, and are the rules that govern the women's sport.  Some changes are possible, but the NCAA made a major reset last season, and is thus less likely to make additional changes this season.  However, some tweaks and improvements are due.  With a rising level of talent in terms of difficulty and execution, it's getting harder to separate the good routines from the great, without resorting to more subjective assessments in execution.  Of course, stricter and more uniform assessments of the routines is highly desirable, but the judging panels also need a few more tools in the toolbox to separate teams.  Here's a few enhancements we wish would be considered for next season:

Vault:  Let's get the obvious out of the way.  The Yurchenko 1/2 / Yurchenko Arabian (Hristakaeva) needs to be devalued to a 9.95, along with the Yurchenko pike with a full twist.  These two vaults were overlooked in the last round of NCAA Code Modifications, and their values not lowered.  The result?  Several teams got a boost of 0.05 or more from one or more gymnasts doing the vault.   Judges also had trouble separating the true 1/2 off to front layout technique from the early twisting Yurchenko halfs.  The simple solution is to simply devalue these vaults.  The NCAA should also consider directional lines down the center of the landing mats.  This would not only help the judges separate the vaults, but help the fans recognize more easily when a mistake has been made.   While lines demarcating distance are valid arguments against their use (e.g., emphasis of height over distance, bias against shorter athletes), there is no rational argument against directional lines.   Problems in direction are often symptoms or outcomes of other faults in technique, like early twisting.

Uneven Bars:  The NCAA shifted the emphasis in the Code Modifications this past season to give a greater emphasis on major releases and big E skills.  They did this by changing the deduction for "up to the level" to require a single bar release, two "D" level releases, or two "E" skills.  The intent of this change appeared to be a desire to reward more risk and stem the tide of routines with single D transition releases done in pirouetting combinations.  For the most part, this was a successful change.  The unintended consequence of this change, however, was the squelching of variety in routine composition.  The NCAA Code Modifications still has two compositional deductions related to the composition of routines:  "Lack of variety in choice of elements and/or connections" and "Insufficient distribution of the elements".  The former can be triggered if "Elements of highest value connected primarily to elements of lowest value" or if certain elements or families of elements are overused (in combinations or throughout the routine).  These two deductions are only worth 0.05 and are either easily avoided or not rigorously applied.  Thus, a routine with a Jaeger to overshoot and an E dismount (or giant-full to double tuck dismount) meets all requirements for a 10 and was found in some variation in the lineup of nearly every NCAA squad this season.  Several teams have the majority of the linups doing a variation on this same stock routine.  A solution to this issue is not a simple one, and would likely be met with heavy resistance.  Adding (or replacing) a compositional requirement of 0.05 on variety elements that specifies a C+C pirouetting combination (with one element from group 5, 6, or 7) or a D+D combination could be one way to address this issue.  This change would also give an opportunity for excellent bar workers to show their technique, and give the judges further opportunity for separation based on execution and routine composition.  (Group five are foward giant swing variations, group six are stalder variations, group 7 are free hip/stoop/toe-on variations).    

Beam:  Balance beam was the event least impacted by changes last season.  And it was likely the event with the least amount of issues with separation of the teams, in terms of scoring.  The NCAA changed the "up to the level" requirement to allow an "E" dance skill to fulfill the "up to the level" requirement where the tumbling series earned no bonus.  E dance skills in NCAA also include full twisting straddle jumps and the switch split leap with a 1/2 turn.  Adding this loophole was "fan unfriendly" in removing exciting acro skills and counterproductive to creating separation among routines.  There have been some vocal complaints about front to back series (like the front aerial to back handspring), and their use instead of "rebounding series" like the back handspring to back layout.  This is because a pause between elements isn't always fairly deducted.  The real solution to this problem is simply to set standards for stricter deductions and/or eliminate some the extra incentive these combinations enjoy.  The front aerial (or front toss) to backhandspring earns an athlete 0.3 in bonus:  one tenth for the D + 0.2 for the combination.  Reducing this to zero or even 0.1, along with strict enforcement of the pause, will reduce the prevalance of this combination because the reward for doing this combination rather than the more risky rebounding series will be equalized.  Right now, they are wildly unequal and that is the root of the problem.     

Floor:   Last season, the NCAA made moves to reward tougher tumbling and changed the "up to the level" deduction with respect to element selection.  A gymnast now must add a second "D" salto or an "D" dance skill in order to avoid a flat 0.1 deduction.  Initially, this lowered the scores of some teams as they adjusted to the new rule.  However, by the end of the season most teams in the Top 50 responded with a second "D" salto or a "D" dance skill and the issue was no longer a problem.  As a result, this change still did not produce the separation needed at the top end of the scoring range.  There are solutions to this problem, but the solutions likely would be met with resistance.  Eliminating the "D" dance exception and/or de-valuing the front 1 1/2 (Rudi) to a C and front double twist to a D could be one solution.  However, this solution would not address the lack of separation at the top end of the spectrum, it would primarily only impact lower to mid range of scores.  And such a break from the values in the USAG JO Code of Points would be unusual.  At the very least, the NCAA should consider reducing the combination bonus the Rudi earns when performed in conjunction with a leap or salto. 

A second solution would be to adopt a sliding scale, like the one that exists in the USAG JO Level 10 code.  There, the top end of the scale is defined by the difficulty used at the Championships.  A full 0.2 tenths could be used to separate the routines that achieve minimum difficulty and those that achieve some defined max level.       

Another element value needs addressing:  the switch side with a 1/4 turn (aka the "Johnson") is a common dance skill used to achieve a "C" bonus combination.  It's also one of the skills that is often performed incorrectly, and it's tough for many panels to catch the deduction, because of poor sight angles on the floor.  Many gymnasts, including some of the best floor workers, overrotate the turn in the jump by at least a 1/4 turn, turning it into a switch side 1/2.  This execution style would not be an issue except for the fact that this skill is often used with another full turning jump like a Popa to gain a bonus tenth in combination and to fulfill the compositional requirement (0.1) for bonus from dance.  Adding a 1/4 turn to this skill subtracts a 1/4 turn from the next full twisting jump, making the next one much easier to finish in the proper position.  Many jump combination attempts should be devalued or deducted, and are not because they are not caught.  A simple solution is that this skill should be devalued to a "B".