Qualifying to level 10 nationals is a common goal for athletes hoping to be recruited for college teams. Almost every college has a coach present at the competition to scout upcoming talent, so the incentive to qualify is quite high. Much like in college gymnastics, there are multiple rounds of postseason competition consisting of state and regional meets that culminate with the national championships. Athletes who finish in the top 7 within their age division and score a minimum of 35.0 in the all-around at regionals qualify to nationals. There are additional routes for individual event specialists and an opportunity to compete in the all-star session or as a representative for a different region for the next ranked all-around competitors that meet the minimum score. Qualification requirements for state and regional competitions vary.
Currently, the eight USAG regions are distributed in a predominantly geographical manner with between four and eight states included in each region.
Current Regions:
Region 1: Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah
Region 2: Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington
Region 3: Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Wyoming
Region 4: Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin
Region 5: Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio
Region 6: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont
Region 7: Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia
Region 8: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee
Although the regions look nicely distributed on the map, there have often been certain regions that lacked enough competitors to fill their quota spots. When you compare the total number of athletes that scored a minimum of 35.0 in the all-around at regionals to how many all-arounders actually competed at nationals from each region it’s clear to see that the number of competitors are not evenly distributed.
| Region | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | ||||||
| Region>35 | Nat’l AA | % | Region>35 | Nat’l AA | % | Region>35 | Nat’l AA | % | |
| 1 | 210 | 97 | 46.2% | 184 | 97 | 52.7% | 188 | 94 | 50.0% |
| 2 | 51 | 48 | 94.1% | 51 | 48 | 94.1% | 61 | 57 | 93.4% |
| 3 | 167 | 93 | 55.7% | 168 | 98 | 58.3% | 170 | 94 | 55.3% |
| 4 | 118 | 78 | 66.1% | 110 | 76 | 69.0% | 127 | 86 | 67.7% |
| 5 | 165 | 89 | 53.9% | 147 | 93 | 63.3% | 141 | 93 | 66.0% |
| 6 | 85 | 72 | 84.7% | 91 | 69 | 75.8% | 85 | 70 | 82.4% |
| 7 | 183 | 94 | 51.4% | 166 | 98 | 59.0% | 194 | 96 | 49.5% |
| 8 | 198 | 103 | 52.0% | 189 | 100 | 52.9% | 196 | 96 | 49.0% |
The data clearly shows that there is a disparity in postseason participation that is mainly rooted in a difference in the number of athletes and the population of the states comprising each region. This disparity has also remained relatively consistent over the last few seasons. Regions 2 and 6 in particular haven’t even come close to filling their allotted team spots in recent years and, as a result, have a much higher percentage of athletes who meet the minimum qualification requirements advancing to nationals than other more competitive and populated regions. While the most heavily competitive regions advance around 50% of their athletes who meet the minimum standards, region 2 consistently advances over 90%. Although the more competitive regions are often able to gain spots for additional athletes due to regions not filling their teams, wouldn’t it just be better if the regions were more equal to begin with?
The number of national championship-caliber athletes in each state changes year after year, so it’s impossible for the distribution of athletes to be perfectly equal amongst the regions over time. While still taking into account geography, we attempted to reorganize the regions to better distribute competitors and allow for a more equal path to nationals for all athletes.
Proposed Regions:
Region 1: Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington
Region 2: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming
Region 3: Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas
Region 4: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin
Region 5: Delaware, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, West Virginia
Region 6: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont
Region 7: Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia
Region 8: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina
Looking at the number of athletes that scored a minimum of 35 at regionals, and would therefore meet the minimum requirement to qualify to nationals, the redistributed regions have a much smaller disparity in athlete number.
| Region | Current Regions | Proposed Regions | ||||
| 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | |
| 1 | 210 | 184 | 188 | 158 | 144 | 153 |
| 2 | 51 | 51 | 61 | 132 | 121 | 127 |
| 3 | 167 | 168 | 170 | 138 | 139 | 144 |
| 4 | 118 | 110 | 127 | 153 | 135 | 135 |
| 5 | 165 | 147 | 141 | 161 | 153 | 167 |
| 6 | 85 | 91 | 85 | 154 | 151 | 155 |
| 7 | 183 | 166 | 194 | 143 | 129 | 145 |
| 8 | 198 | 189 | 196 | 128 | 127 | 123 |
| Range | 159 | 138 | 135 | 33 | 32 | 44 |
| Avg Range | 144.0 | 36.3 | ||||
With the current regional distribution, there has been an average range in the total number of qualified competitors between the most and least competitive regions of 144. Under the new organization, the range would only be an average of 36.3–roughly a quarter of the current difference. This would allow for a more straightforward qualification process where every region would likely be able to fill their own teams and all-star spots and every athlete would know their qualification status at the conclusion of their regional without having to wait and see if they are able to get a spot redistributed from another region.
As of writing, level 10 regionals have not yet happened, but based on the results from 2025 state championships, the current disparity in number of competitors is likely to persist. All state championship scores have not yet been posted online, but based on the information that’s available, Texas alone had 133 athletes score above 35 at their state championships. That’s already more athletes than regions 2, 4, and 6 had that met the same standard. In order for the national championship meet to truly be a showcase of the top talent in the sport, regions likely need to be realigned in the future to offer a more fair qualification process.
READ THIS NEXT: Data Deep Dive: Do Scores Actually Rise During Postseason Two-Session Meets?
Article by Mariah Dawson
