The June 2024 report of the National Collegiate Women’s Gymnastics Committee was recently made public. Discussed in the meeting were proposed changes to the sport for future seasons. We break down the main recommendations here, share our thoughts on them, and pose questions that still need answering.
Recommendation No. 1
Increase the number of competing athletes in postseason competition from 15 to 18. This was a recommendation from last year that was tabled until this year. This would take effect in the 2025 season.
Thoughts from our editors:
There are a couple of positives for this. The first is for teams like BYU that utilize a lot of specialists. In fact, during the 2024 season, BYU had more than 15 gymnasts competing across the four events and had to make a tough decision come postseason to narrow it down.
This recommendation was made prior to the news that scholarship limits will likely be increased beginning in the 2025-2026 season while also capping the roster size at 20 gymnasts. It’ll be interesting to see whether this proposal will again be tabled until that settlement is finalized. It’s possible that the postseason competitor limit could be raised to 18 for the 2025 season and then again raised to 20 once the roster limit takes effect.
On a sentimental note, it does always suck a little to see a handful of athletes in the stands, watching their team compete at regionals or the national championships, especially those on the winning team. Sometimes it’s because they aren’t regular contributors, but other times it’s because of an injury to a star.
Recommendation No. 2
Add a “super regional” weekend to postseason. The first round would be unchanged. The second round would have eight teams—one of which would be the winner from round one—and four would advance to one of two super regionals, which would be hosted by the top team by NQS. Four teams from each super regional would advance to nationals. This would take effect in the 2026 season.
Thoughts from our editors:
At a surface level, this proposal seems to keep the postseason structure mostly the same, with the only difference being that the third round (currently the regional final) would be moved to its own weekend and hosted by the highest-seeded team remaining in that half of the bracket. However, it does not give all the details of how the eight teams would be narrowed down to four—would there be two sessions of four teams with the highest two in each session advancing, or would the highest four scores regardless of session advance? Would there be any changes to the other rounds, or is it really as simple as we’re interpreting it?
Regardless of the exact format, we have some concerns here. While it would be exciting to have the top-seeded team on each half of the bracket host a round of the postseason tournament, the logistics of planning such an event at the last minute may not always work out as envisioned. Colleges host gymnastics competitions in arenas that are not only used for other sports but also for public events; there could be an issue of arena availability.
We also wonder why this is necessary. The regional round is already hosted at the home arenas of four different programs, so any school interested in hosting postseason competition can throw its hat in the ring when it comes time to choose those hosts, as long as its facilities have the specified requirements.
If there is a concern about teams having to compete as many as three meets in four days in the regional, surely it would make more sense to move the first round (which consists of only eight teams in four dual meets) to its own weekend, perhaps in a set location similar to the First Four that we see in the men’s basketball tournament. This could potentially increase both attendance and visibility for these meets, which are currently in the middle of a weekday afternoon and feel like a bit of an afterthought compared to the excitement of the rest of the tournament.
Postseason travel is already expensive with only two weekends of competition, so forcing a large portion of the field to add an extra weekend of travel that can’t be planned until a week in advance would add even more pressure to programs with already tight budgets. It especially seems counterintuitive to add this extra cost when you consider that the bracket is largely determined by “geography” with the intention of limiting travel costs as much as possible.
Recommendation No. 3
Move the entire season back two weeks. This would allow for more training after winter break prior to competing and no postseason conflict with March Madness. This would take effect in the 2030 season.
Thoughts from our editors:
In recent years, we’ve already seen logistical issues with the gymnastics postseason not meshing well with March Madness, with Arizona and Illinois having to give up either conference or regional hosting assignments due to women’s basketball conflicts. This would, hopefully, completely solve that problem, potentially give gymnasts more time at home (as well as more time to train) around the holidays, and maybe even allow for more gymnastics on national TV, since it wouldn’t have to compete for air time with traditionally higher-viewership sports. It’s a shame it wouldn’t take effect until the 2030 season, but our best guess is that the timing is determined by TV agreements already in place.
Recommendation No. 4
Add eight Countable Athletically Related Activities (CARA) hours to the summer calendar. This would allow for additional training time in summer to prepare for fall training. This would take effect in the 2024-2025 season.
Thoughts from our editors:
We don’t really have much of an opinion on this one. If the gymnasts and teams want this, who are we to complain? The only potential issue we could see is more “required training” hours may lead to more overtraining or injuries by the time the season or postseason roll around, but that’s speculation at best.
READ THIS NEXT: Recruiting Roundup: July 2024
Article by Jenna King and Elizabeth Grimsley
