2011 Capsule Previews #13 to #25

The college recruiting process can be a daunting effort if it is not well planned and executed with organization and enthusiasm from start to finish. In addition, one’s mental approach to the college search, especially when checkered with roadblocks, can make the difference between a fair and a great experience. What follows is a “snapshot” on how prospects and families can proactively prepare for and effectively deal with personal setbacks that will undoubtedly surface along the way.

2011 Capsule Previews

The college experience is, in many cases, the most important four years in the prospective student athlete’s life, as it will shape their future personal and professional direction. That being said, securing admission to a college or university that best match students’ desires, strengths, and aspirations is essential.
(Editor's Note:  The latest in Tom Kovic's ongoing series of articles on the recruiting process... just as in-gym visits begin).  Whenever I lecture on college athletics recruiting, a primary area I focus on is using “deliberate” communication with college coaches in an effort to build sincere personal relationships.  Although eligibility, financial aid and contacts and evaluations are all very important, I am convinced the area of communication is very important to the likelihood of success in the college search for athletes.
Organization is an important component in the college search for athletes and completing a college-bound assessment for what you would like to achieve is a great way to start! Think of the assessment as the seed you want to plant to grow your recruiting effort. What grows will be determined by how you cultivate it from start to finish. Looking at the “big picture” can be a tall task for most high school-aged athletes, but if you can begin with the end game in mind and work backwards in developing your personal plan for success, you will most likely run…
Like it or not, we are a society of rapid change and the rate we effectively adapt to that change can make the difference between a good and great experience. The same holds true in college athletics recruiting. The question is: How do we come to grip with this rapidly mounting culture shock in the college quest for athletes?

Skills of Note in the 2010 Season (W)

The following is a listing of high level skills performed by Women in the 2010 Season.  To make this list, the skill had to be successfully competed in a meet sometime during the season.  The skill competed must have an FIG rating of "E" or "F" or "G", or an FIG Vault Difficult Value of 5.3 or higher.

The issue of escalating difficult leading to higher injury rates and more wear and tear on the athlete is important.  The purpose of this list is not to encourage or foster unreasonable risk or other threats to the safety of the athletes.  In fact, many of the skills on this list were only competed in special circumstances.  This list simply serves as an archive and collection of skills actually performed by the athletes.

This list is incomplete and will be updated as information becomes available.  Please submit your additions and corrections to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..


VAULT

 

 

 

 

 

UNEVENS

 

 

 

 


RO 1/2 on, Front Layout 1/2 Off

Vanessa Zamarripa, UCLA

Tsukahara Layout 3/2

Marissa King, Florida

Yurchenko Layout 2/1

Yurchenko Layout 3/2

    Ricki Lebegern, Alabama

    Natalie Beilstein, Michigan

    Rebecca Best, Ohio State

    Annie DiLuzio, Utah

    Susan Jackson, LSU

    Anna Li, UCLA

    Hillary Mauro, UGA

    Brittani McCullough, UCLA

    Christine Nguyen, UNC

    Brandi Personett, PSU

    Katie Simon, CMU


Comaneci

    Grace Taylor, UGA

Shushunova

Monica Eaton, BGSU

Full Twisting Double Layout Flyaway

    Dana Bonincontri, Penn

    Kylee Botterman, Michigan

    Jamie Bullock, Minnesota

    Nicole Cowart, Illinois

    Taylor Jacob, Boise State

    Courtney McCool, UGA

    Brie Olson, OU

    Brandi Personett, PSU

    Kara Wright, UNC

Hindorff (clear-hip reverse hecht/Tkachev)

    Meaghan Biros, Pitt

    Ashanee Dickerson, UF

    Kassi Price, Bama

Ricna (Stalder reverse hecht/Tkachev)

Ray (toe-on Tkachev)

Natalie Ettl, PSU

Ericka Garcia, LSU

Natasha Kelley, OU

Brittani McCullough, UCLA

Sarah Tomczyk, Arizona

Shayla Worley, UGA

Bharwaj (full twisting Pak)

    Leslie Mak, Oregon State


BEAM

 

 


 

 

FLOOR

 

 

 

 


Round-Off, Layout to Two Feet Mount

Switch Ring Leap

    Abigail Adams, Maryland

    Morgan Evans, UNC

    Brigitte Kivisto, Yale

    Molly Quirk, Arizona

    Randy Stageberg, UF

    Holly Vise, OU

Back tuck 1/1 twist

Arabian Front Tuck

Back Layout Two Foot*

5/2 Turn in Wolf (Humphrey)

Double Front Tuck

Back Double Pike

* Athlete must hold layout position througout for E credit.  Layout
with pike down is credited as a D.



 

Full Twisting Double Layout

Double Layout

    Brooke Barr, NC State

    Kristina Coccia, DU

    Morgan Dennis, Bama

    Hilary Ferguson, UK

    Emily Green, UK

    Marissa Gutierrez, Bama

    Susan Jackson, LSU

    Marissa King, Florida

    Anna Li, UCLA

    Emily Lopatofsky, MSU

    Brandi Personett, PSU

    Vanessa Zamarripa, UCLA

Double Front

    Daria Bijak, Utah

    Jessa Hansen, Iowa

    Danae Johnson, Rutgers

    Natalie Sutter, NIU

Arabian Double Front

    Mary Atkinson, ASU

    Natalie Beilstein, Michigan

    Ashanee Dickerson, UF

    Brittany Emmons, Ball State

    Samantha Engle, LSU

    Deanna Graham, Arizona

    Elyse Hopfner-Hibbs, UCLA

    Carly Janiga, Stanford

    Marissa King, Florida

    Hilary Mauro, UGA

    Sharaya Musser, PSU

    Christine Nguyen, UNC

    Gina Nuccio, UGA

    Jaime Pisani, Arkansas

    Kyndal Robarts, Utah

    Mandi Rodriguez, Oregon State

    Geralen Stack-Eaton, Bama

    Shayla Worley, UGA

Triple Full

    Annie DiLuzio, Utah

    Megan Ferguson, OU

    Katie Hurley, AU

    Nicole Pechanec, Stanford

Tuck Full In or Half In/Half Out

    Abigail Adams, Maryland

    Shelly Alexander, Stanford

    Sarah Curtis, Michigan

    Miranda Der, Bridgeport

    Lora Evenstad, NU

    Lauren Gildemeyer, Brockport

    Erin Grigg, EMU

    Kelci Lewis, Arkansas

    Tiffany Louie, San Jose State

    Casey Jo Magee, Arkansas

    Brittnee Martinez, Michigan

    Brittani McCullough, UCLA

    Jasmine Minion, UK

    Jaime Pisani, Arkansas

    Hannah Redmon, Boise State

    Taylor Seaman, NC State

    Sarah (Specht) Tomczyk, Arizona

Tuck Full Out

Pike Full In

    Whitney Bencsko, PSU

    Kylee Botterman, Michigan

    Noel Couch, UGA

    Toi Garcia, AU

    Maranda Smith, Florida

Today’s college athletic climate is much different than it was 20 years ago and college coaches are under tremendous pressure to achieve two important goals: win and raise money. The one directly affects the other and alumni will enthusiastically support a winning team…and yes, the opposite is true. The cost of effectively managing a successful college athletics department has increased over the years, while support from university subvention has, in most cases, increased slightly, if not at all.
In his latest contribution, Tom Kovic shares the importance of persistence in the college recruiting search... The dictionary definition of persistence is: continuing in spite of opposition; enduring, lasting or recurrent. In a nutshell, I feel strongly that a persistent effort in every aspect of the college search for athletes will, in the end, give prospects and their families the greatest chance at success.
Page 14 of 15