Everyone has that gymnastics take—the one that makes their group chat go silent or sparks a fiery social media reply thread. Whether it’s a hotly debated scoring gripe, a love-it-or-hate-it leotard, or an unpopular opinion about a fan-favorite team, we all have thoughts that might ruffle a few feathers. In Hear Me Out, the CGN team is airing out our most controversial NCAA gymnastics opinions—and making our best case for why we just might be right.
Not Every Team Needs to Compete at the Conference Championship
Editor’s Opinion: Elizabeth
There was a lot of controversy surrounding Arkansas missing out on the SEC championship this season. And while I agree that the situation wasn’t handled particularly well, I actually disagree with the opinion that every team deserves a spot at the meet. In fact, I think fewer teams should qualify.
Plenty of other sports don’t include every conference team in their championship or tournament. But gymnastics is a bit different, since missing out on that opportunity can also impact postseason qualification. That said, if coaches and organizers can find a way to give non-qualifying teams one last NQS-eligible meet elsewhere (or teams can plan better with more meets earlier in the season), why not make the championship a true best-of-the-best event?
History has already proven it’s next to impossible to win out of the non-evening session anyway, so why not eliminate it entirely? (The other solution I would be in favor of is essentially the complete opposite: a real tournament, because more gymnastics is never a bad idea.)
Eliminate Two-Pass Floor Routines
Editor’s Opinion: KT
Floor used to be one of my favourite college events to watch, but over the past few seasons I’ve found myself craving a return of the three-pass routine. Listen, I know all the good reasons why; season is long, college bodies are held together with tape and a prayer, and it minimizes potential landing deductions. But every routine is the same, the added leaps to take the routine up to level are well executed in only a minority of routines and they certainly aren’t deducted consistently by the judges. Our understanding of sports conditioning has improved over the past decade. Coaches should be aware of the importance of weight training and plyometrics for injury prevention and longevity, and athletes who are well managed through their teens and college careers should be able to do three-pass routines safely and successfully. We are increasingly seeing elite gymnasts compete into their 30s, so we don’t need to dumb down the routines: We need to get smarter with the training!
Two-Pass Floor Routines Are OK
Editor’s Opinion: Tara
I know people like high-flying tumbling. They’re not wrong—I do too, and I equally enjoy three-pass routines.. But teams are going to work the code to the best of their advantage, and I don’t blame them. Minimizing deductions is one thing—but the college season is also long and grueling, and we see enough injuries already. If it helps save an athlete’s body, I’m all for it. I’d rather watch my favorite gymnasts than wonder why Achilles injuries increased again. Of course, they have to compensate for only performing two passes somehow, but that’s what working the code is for. As a spectator, gymnasts make everything look easy, and I don’t think one avenue is necessarily more difficult than the other when done right (I share this opinion on transitions vs. same bar releases on bars, but that’s a discussion for another day). Sure, tighten the loopholes, but I don’t hate the two-pass routines and I don’t blame the coaches and gymnasts for exploiting the code.
Bar Routines Need a Single-Bar Release Requirement
Editor’s Opinion: Jessica N
I was watching one of the national semifinals with my mother, who is not a gym nerd, and she asked, “Are they all doing the same bar routine?” The answer is, basically, yes. If the event is boring to even the casual observer, let’s add some dazzling, high-flying feats of daring by requiring a same-bar release element. Release moves are exciting! And risky! If the gymnast doesn’t take the risk, the start value should max out at 9.95. Just as teams are looking for 10.0 vaults, they’ll need to start training and recruiting athletes who can regrasp the bar consistently. Even with great bar workers, there is always the possibility of falls, and counting a fall toward the team total would make competitions much less predictable and much more interesting. And while we’re revamping bar routine construction, let’s require higher value mounts. Now that Jordan Bowers and her hecht over the low bar have left the scene, will anyone perform something other than a kip on the low bar or jump to hang on the high bar? The best athletes in the nation should not compete routines with skills that beginning gymnasts can perform. Let’s challenge the athletes, add more variety to the routines, and give fans the entertaining experience that college gymnastics prides itself on.
There’s No Such Thing as Underscoring in College Gymnastics
Editor’s Opinion: Jenna
Have you ever read the level 10 code of points? Probably not, because it’s behind a paywall. But I’ll save you some time: There are a LOT of deductions, and most of them are prescribed to be more than half a tenth in value. When fans complain about their favorite team being “underscored,” what’s actually happening is that the team is still overscored, just maybe not to quite the same extent as some other teams. Of course, that is a legitimate frustration, but the solution to overscoring is not even more overscoring. If we take a closer look at a similar-looking vault that scores 9.85 on an SEC team and 9.75 on an EAGL team, there are probably enough deductions that aren’t getting taken by either set of judges to get it down to a 9.5 level. The only way to fix the scoring issues we are seeing is to take deductions as written in the code, not to demand scores get even higher (looking at you, announcers constantly asking “Where are the deductions?”). Either that or we need an NCAA-specific code of points that isn’t as strict and is publicly available, because we’re giving the “gymnastics isn’t a real sport” crowd plenty of talking points with the way the judging currently works.
Oklahoma Has the Best Floor Choreography in the NCAA
Editor’s Opinion: Mary
Oklahoma floor is definitely something, but at least it’s something. In a sea full of poses meaninglessly placed over techno music, Oklahoma on floor is a breath of fresh air. The athletes are committed to their performance, whilst many other teams treat artistry and performance as an afterthought. Sure, some routines have been a miss over the year, but the masterpieces that were Mueller and Bower’s routines this season could not have been created by anybody but KJ Kindler.
College Gymnastics Should Allow for More Originality in Routines
Editor’s Opinion: Sara
As every preseason goes, gymnasts and coaches alike look to better both skills and routines to further elevate the success of college gymnastics. We’ve seen multiple schools like Simpson, Fisk, Wilberforce, and Long Island add gymnastics teams over the past few years and have only helped continue to raise the level of difficulty and excitement. However, we still see the same routines performed coast to coast only to be mildly disappointed that something new has not emerged. For example, on bars there are more overshoots and double back dismounts, on beam, most gymnasts tend to perform a back handspring layout series, and on floor many opt for a two-pass floor routine filled with double pikes and front layout combinations that fans can predict before the gymnast even performs them. Many years ago, the code of points allowed for more originality: take Georgia Dabritz’s bar routine and Peng Peng Lee’s beam routine from the Super Six meet, which both scored a perfect 10.000. This type of gymnastics allowed viewers to enjoy the uniqueness of high-level difficulty instead of constantly predicting what skills would come next. After all, gymnastics should not be about predictions but instead love for the athletes who worked so hard to get to the collegiate level.
We’ve Progressed Past the Need for Disclaimers When Criticizing Scoring
Editor’s Opinion: Katherine
It’s an age-old refrain: prefacing criticism of an inflated score with “this is a commentary on the score and the judges, not the athletes.” However, with discussions about scoring issues becoming more prevalent in recent years, seemingly in direct correlation to those issues getting worse, this disclaimer should no longer be necessary. We know, gymnastics has a long way to go before it is treated the same as football, basketball, and other high-level sports with intense fanbases and less infantilizing of athletes; continuing to add this disclaimer contributes even more to the latter issue. After all, it’s not like the judges themselves are providing the same disclaimer prior to breaking a connection or deducting for a fall: “This isn’t a reflection on you!” It feels as though everyone (even the gymnasts!) knows these critiques are really about the judging without having to say it.
READ THIS NEXT: Data Deep Dive: Leotard Trends
Article by the editors of College Gym News
If you read the YouTube comments on videos showing clear errors in perfect 10 routines, it really drives home how many people do not understand that gymnastics has a code of points with clearly spelled out deductions. For example, a video with a clear (small) hop on a vault landing had a comment to the effect of “What was she supposed to do? Take all that momentum and somehow defy physics to drill her feet into the mat and not move?” Yes. Yes she was, because that’s literally what the code of points demands if you don’t want a deduction on your landing. In baseball, the umps don’t let you take first base because you were “SO close” to being safe. Rules are rules.