10/24/2026
HOW MANY DIVISIONS DO WE REALLY NEED?
We keep talking about the cost of cheer. Registration, admission, travel, hotels—and how much families spend to attend competitions. But there’s another question we need to ask:
How much actual COMPETITION are we getting for that money?
As the industry looks at options for future age grids and division structures, I want parents to be part of that conversation. Every decision about divisions affects not just the gyms, but the families paying for this sport. It affects who our children compete against, who they practice with, how far we travel—and whether there is anyone else in their division when we get there.
Are we creating more opportunities to compete—or more ways to compete alone?
WHEN EVERYONE GETS FIRST
Several years ago, I attended a competition where two gyms from the same city competed in separate Club and Non-Club divisions - same age group, same level and both competed with the same rules/scoresheets. Both received first place. Neither had an opponent in its division. We watched the routines. We sat through the awards. Families spent their time and money. But where was the competition?
I understand that divisions exist for reasons. Age, skill level, team size and program resources can matter. Fair competition does not mean putting every team into one giant category. But every additional separation needs to justify what it accomplishes.
700 DIVISION OPTIONS ACROSS THE DIFFERENT SYSTEMS
I started working through division grids and the ways teams can be separated: age, level, team size, gender, program size and competitive pathway. This passed 700+ system-specific division options, including a documented USASF size and D1/D2 split scenario, Open Championships Series, many IEPs and even USASF/IASF Worlds. (I still might have missed a couple). That number needs context. It is a working estimate of the combined menu—not 700 unique competitive divisions or 700 divisions at one event. For example, USASF alone has 105 base listings. Applying size, divisions, D1/D2 and additional Junior coed splits used in our scenario expands that to 235 categories. Not every event offers every category. But that is exactly why participation matters when we consider adding more. (AAU, Pop Warner, YCADA were just a few NOT counted in this count)
AND THE SYSTEMS DON’T ALL MATCH.
USASF, IASF, Open Championship Series and the different recreation and travel pathways do not all use identical eligibility rules. Independent producers can have additional offerings, too. Scoring and age grids also do different jobs. Scoring determines how a routine is evaluated. Age grids and division rules determine who can compete against whom. Changing a score sheet does not automatically create another division. Creating another eligibility category can. Even the word “Select” does not describe one consistent program. TOP Select’s travel cheer pathways and Redline’s Select Performance divisions are different offerings. I understand why different pathways exist. Beginners need room to learn. Community programs can have different resources and commitments. Age, skill progression and access for athletes with disabilities matter.
But every additional separation deserves the same question: Will enough teams enter it to create meaningful competition?
REDLINE’S COMPETITION GUARANTEE
Redline introduced a pilot guarantee for designated Prep and Elite divisions, selected using previous-season participation data. If an eligible team competes alone in its guaranteed division, its program receives a credit equal to its eligible paid registration fee toward another Redline event. The guarantee also remains in place when Redline creates certain division splits. There are eligibility requirements and exclusions. This is a future registration credit—not a cash refund or reimbursement for parents’ hotels, travel or admission. But I appreciate a producer putting a financial commitment behind the expectation that teams should have someone to compete against. If we recognize that competing alone is a problem, we should examine whether additional divisions would make that problem better or worse.
BEFORE MAKING CHANGES, LET’S SEE THE WHOLE PICTURE.
How many teams would realistically enter a new division?
How many would leave an existing division to do it?
Would the change address a meaningful eligibility, safety or access issue—or leave two divisions with one team each?
Would families have to travel farther to find competition?
I would like to see actual participation modeling: under the current structure and each alternative, how many teams would have zero, one, two or more opponents?
Coaches and owners understand roster-building challenges, especially small gyms. Producers understand registration and scheduling. Parents understand what it costs to show up—and what that experience feels like from the stands.
All of those perspectives belong in the discussion.
THIS ALSO CONNECTS TO COST.
Fewer divisions would not automatically mean lower admission prices, hotel rates or registration fees. Producers would have to make those pricing decisions. But when parents ask about the cost of competition weekends, we should also talk about what those weekends deliver. I would imagine that there could be increased costs on the producer side - more divisions, longer days (staff time), more first place awards, longer award sessions, etc. And sometimes a first-place award with no other team in the division. Families can spend the same money whether their team faces ten opponents or none, but the competitive experience is very different.
SO WHAT WOULD I CHANGE?
These are MY recommendations for discussion. (Again, this is ONLY MY OPINION) I would start by restructuring what we already have.
1. KEEP AGE GROUPS CLOSER TO SCHOOL STAGES.
I want age groups that more closely reflect where children are developmentally, with a little overlap between adjacent groups. I do not support widening age ranges through Flex or simply making those wider ranges the standard. A child’s ability to perform a skill does not answer every question about whether that team is an appropriate environment for them. Physical development, emotional maturity and the social setting matter, too.
As a parent, I have safety concerns about very young children sharing a team with much older teenagers. My position is that first graders and high school seniors should not be on the same team. We need to build the structure around appropriate age groups, then address roster challenges within that structure.
2. LOOK AT TEAM SIZE BEFORE ADDING ANOTHER GYM CLASSIFICATION.
I would explore an Extra Small option for eligible Youth, Junior and Senior divisions at Levels 1–4.2. Not Tiny or Mini. Not Level 5 or Junior Level 6. If the problem is that a small team struggles to compete against a much larger roster, let’s examine team size directly. If a gym only has a few members of a certain age group or division, this would help. Maybe team size 5-11, with small shifting to 12-22. (This should help micro and smaller gyms field a team and compete against other teams that size). That does not mean XS automatically solves everything. The size limits would need to make sense, and actual registration data should show whether it would create competitive fields. I would keep D1/D2 and compare that targeted XS approach with adding another program-size classification.
3. MAKE THOSE CHANGES AS PART OF A SIMPLER STRUCTURE.
Yes, XS would add options in specific divisions. That is why I would pair it with removing others. In the structure I would explore, Flex would go away. Medium would be removed from Level 5 and Junior Level 6, leaving Small and Large. (This part is already happening this season) These changes need to be evaluated together. Narrower age ranges would also affect where teams fit, so we need to model the full structure before claiming a final reduction. I would also review whether separate travel pathways could be consolidated under compatible eligibility and competition rules while preserving opportunities for the athletes they serve.
The goal is to provide appropriate places for athletes to compete without unnecessarily separating teams that could fairly face one another. I know that I am saying adding new divisions, but with making changes/reductions to other areas, we could actually lose divisions. And I recognize that changes could create challenges for programs and families. That deserves a transition period, clear guidance and a review after the first season—not an assumption that everyone will simply figure it out.
WHAT DO PARENTS WANT?
I want us to examine whether we can simplify the structure, but we simply can not just keep adding divisions or widening the age grids because it doesn’t work for this gym or that gym. And I want parents included while those decisions are being considered.
Would you support tighter age groups and fewer overlapping division options—even if it meant your child’s team faced more competition?
