Parallel Perspectives

How will the men’s NCAA rules changes impact results?

Gymnastics and Historical Parity

As a whole, sports are heavily reliant on parity to draw in viewers, sponsors, and even participants. Studies have shown that as high as 70% of viewers watch sports because of the ‘uncertainty of outcome.’ Many viewers have a, “if I know who’s going to win, why even watch” mentality. This is where the sport of gymnastics is a true outlier. Gymnastics has almost never had parity, dating back to the era of 1952-1980, when the Soviet women won every Olympic team gold in contention. Even for the NCAA men, we’ve seen very few differences at the top –  just ask Mark Williams and his Oklahoma Sooners. Since 2002, the Sooners have placed first or second as a team in 18 out of the 22 National Championship competitions. Since 2015, the only schools to have the crown of National Champions are Oklahoma and Stanford, with the Cardinal winning each of the last five bouts. Expand it down to 2008, and that list still only adds Michigan and Illinois. In a competition with 12 qualifying teams, how can we see such little differences year after year? And more importantly: with so many expected outcomes, how can we generate more popularity (i.e. viewership) for the sport? 

With another Olympic cycle underway and the rule changes set into place by the FIG, the NCAA attempted to answer those questions. Their answer (as of now) is to count less team scores at every competition. In the old format, each team was able to put forth 6 athletes per event, and the 5 best scores counted towards the team total. They dubbed this format “6 up, 5 count”. This format held through the first half of each season, when it then switched to “5 up, 5 count”. Basically, teams didn’t have a ‘throw away routine’ anymore. With this format, every routine counted for every team, but the top teams evidently still had enough room for error. They simply held the difficulty advantage by such a large amount that they could afford to make mistakes. The NCAA hopes that is not the case with the new format. 

4 up, 4 count

Not to wish down on any teams specifically, but the NCAA is certainly aware of the dominance from Stanford and OU recently. Naturally, the NCAA wants to draw more viewers and grab attention towards all of their sports. Their hope is that a “4 up, 4 count” team scoring format will simply increase parity; i.e. that the gaps in difficulty scores will be lessened with fewer routines counting towards the team totals. Let’s take into account a hypothetical situation wherein “Team A” [a well established, historically strong team with plenty of resources] goes up against “Team B” [a dark horse, still building momentum, navigating recruiting limitations and harnessing talent]. “Team B” would need so much to ‘go right’ for them just to have a chance at beating “Team A” with a total of 30 (5 per event) counted routines! But, with 24 routines? That may be more doable. If both teams count 24 scores, a fall or two from “Team A” would really open the door for “Team B”. 

Essentially, the top teams have less room for error with this new format. Add on the FIG change of routines shortening from 10 elements down to eight (again, giving less room for the top routines to separate themselves), and now we could seriously be getting somewhere. On that same hand though, a mistake for one of the underdogs hurts them even more than it used to as well. If a favorite is battling off an underdog, and the underdog has a hand slip off of the pommel horse, it makes it a very comfortable situation once again for the favorite. The key difference is in the old format, the underdog wouldn’t have won even with a cleanly executed pommel routine. 

Though like any change, there are counter-arguments to this format as well. Imagine you’re Stanford, who truly might have five or six world-class routines on an event – why should they be limited to only competing four of them? If I was the coach and I had more than the required (four) routines, I might feel as if I’m wasting athletes’ talents by not letting them compete. Furthermore, if I have more than the required four routines, isn’t my team truly better and deserving of some buffer room for mistakes? 

One might find pros and cons for the new format from every angle, but a single certainty remains:

Conference and National Championships will be won and lost based upon who can execute their routines when it matters most.

...

Written by Aiden Whitehead

Principal Staff Writer for TURN

About Aiden

Hello gymnastics fans! I’m Aiden and I’m super excited to join the team at TURN as the 'Principal Staff Writer'. I began competing gymnastics at the age of six and immediately fell in love with the sport. I am currently in the midst of my senior season as a competitor, serving my third year as a team captain for the Georgia United GymACT team. Last December, I graduated from the University of Georgia with a Bachelor’s degree in Sports Management, with Sports Media Certification as well. I've already acquired a few years of media experience, working a variety of roles with GymACT, Virtius, and Neutral Deductions. In addition to competing, I am an active women’s team coach at Oconee Gymnastics Center, as well as the Technical Director of the Georgia Men’s Gymnastics Judging Association. Evidently — even though I am competing, coaching, and judging — I can never get enough of this sport, so I’m excited to take this new role as well!