It is a positive for the profile of gymnastics as a whole in the United States to have someone as successful and marketable as Simone able to take advantage of everything being a professional athlete entails. If everything goes to plan, she's going to be a damn star, with her dominance, cheerful personality, and natural presence in front of a camera (she's not one of the I'm So Honored robots, and I hope they don't turn her into one). Usually I rail against people going pro at this point in the quad because you just don't know what's going to happen, but everyone and their dog knows Simone is going to the Olympics if she's healthy, so this isn't like a Bieger situation.
But mostly, I want to take this opportunity to talk about the new NCAA rules, which are finally published and official. (Thanks to super sleuth Cordelia Price for the twitter red alert.) Take a look. This is basically just confirmation of the information that circulated a few months ago, but now it's all real, and we have to deal with it. Let's break down the major developments.
1) Yurchenko full and Yurchenko 1/2, 9.95 start value.
Al Trautwig would like me to take this opportunity to remind you that the start value is the value at which the vault starts.
This is the big one. Shockingly, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other so far. Something had to be done about the omnipresence of Yfulls in NCAA gymnastics. It's everyone, all the time. But it remains to be seen whether downgrading the vault is that solution. There are a number of people on top teams (like Scaman) who will be able to upgrade realistically and safely back to a 10.0 SV vault, which should change the dynamic of the vault lineups at showcase meets, but for the most part, teams will still be performing their same lineups packed with Yfulls because they don't have more difficult vaults or different entries to do. The Yfull will remain by far, far, far the most-performed vault in NCAA, even with this change. It will just score lower. Although, if we see even a small upswing in the number of Omelianchiks performed, then I'll be a happy camper.
The argument against downgrading the full has long been that it makes it even harder for the second-tier teams to compete and inhibits (DUN DUN DUN) parity, since only the top teams will be able to put up the 1.5s. I used to subscribe to this argument more than I do now. It's not like the second-tier teams were an inch away from making Super Six and now they have no chance. They weren't getting there anyway. This won't change that dynamic and perhaps will allow some less traditional vaults to stand out.
I do, however, wonder what this will do for the equivalency of scoring across the four events. Currently, vault and floor enjoy a slight advantage over bars and beam in total scoring, but it's not major or definite, and they're all within reason. Hopefully this doesn't degrade the vault scores too much to the point where it becomes the clear lower-scoring event. How about we agree that execution judging gets .050 stricter on the other events to maintain the balance with all these yfulls?
But overall, I appreciate that this adds a new wrinkle to proceedings (whether or not it solves the problem in any substantive way) and provides an extra element of strategy. Which teams are going to take the plunge and start throwing a bunch of 1.5s, and which teams will play it safe with their fulls and hope to get through on execution over teams throwing potentially sloppier 1.5s? (What a very elite question!) It could also change the lineups. Someone like Breanna Hughes for Utah has a 1.5, but hasn't been making the vault lineup. Does having a 1.5 put her over the edge? (Or will that happen anyway because every single Utah gymnast graduated after last year?)
Also, the judging aspect should get interesting. And by interesting, I mean infuriating. So no change there. How are these vaults going to be scored? Currently, 1.5s get a little bit of scoring forgiveness compared to equivalently executed fulls. Does that unwritten boost go away now that the 1.5 advantage is codified, or does it stay? Is 9.950 going to be a realistic score for a great full, or will it be reserved solely for almost-great 1.5s? We're all going to be watching those vault scores like damn vultures. Get ready, judges. You thought we were critical before? Bring me all the fine-toothed combs in the land!
Final note: Vulture-eyed Uncle Tim noted that while the Yfull has been downgraded, the Yurchenko piked full still starts from a 10.0. Yeah. Nothing has better encapsulated the nonsense of NCAA gymnastics rule procedures than that. Someone needs to clean that oversight up. Can you imagine? Coaches frantically telling everyone to be really sure to pike their straight vaults at the end. "It's totally piked! I swear! 10!"
2) The McMurtry Rule
At its heart, the new rule requires a same-bar release of at least D value on bars, which many have spent years clamoring for, but in reality, there are enough exceptions included that the requirement is sort of neutered and basically refers only to routines with McMurtry-style composition.
Gymnasts can now must fulfill the bars "up to level" requirement with one of the following:
1) a D same-bar release
2) any release of E value
Shap 1/2, bhardwaj, etc. will still suffice to complete the requirement. If the rule is the McMurtry Rule, this is the Peng Exception.
3) minimum of two D releases
That means that routines with a bail and a shap are also still fine. I didn't need this exception. You should still have to perform a same-bar release if you're not Peng.
4) minimum of two E skills
This is another interesting one, meaning that someone could do, say, a stalder full and a DLO dismount and avoid having to perform a same-bar release, which makes no sense.
3) No more event finals
This is not part of the rule amendments, and may not necessarily be in place immediately for the upcoming season, but word is also that event finals are to be done away with. I have never been the biggest fan of event finals and would not be as sad as some others to see them die (it's just so anti-climactic and 95% boring unless someone throws out a cool skill), but to do away with a day of gymnastics completely instead of trying to overhaul the system is a little depressing. It seems like we could come up with some other, entertaining way to continue to showcase the sport.
The other part of this development is, according to Greg Marsden for a hot second on facebook, that the semifinals would remain on Friday, but the final wouldn't be until Sunday, leaving a whole day off in between with no competition. That's a bore, shatters the momentum of the event, and is a pain for the fans who actually might want to travel to the event, forcing an extra day of no gymnastics upon them. Hopefully if this does happen, the semifinals will be moved to Saturday, which makes much more sense.
Sadly, the proposal to limit the team final to four teams instead of six was rejected again because of.........the reasons? That are terrible and don't exist? Super Six is too long, and byes make competitions awkward. It's just not an efficient or organized system and could be so much more entertaining. "Oh, boo hoo, limiting it to four teams means fewer teams get a chance to participate in the final!" Cry me a river. I'm sorry, were you not aware that you are competing in a sport? Suck it up. You want to be in the final? Then get better.
Honestly, if event finals are to be eliminated and the final moved to Sunday, my ideal system would see 16 teams advance to nationals, divided into 4 semifinals each of 4 teams, with only the winners advancing to the team final. Two semifinals would take place on Friday, and the other two would be on Saturday. This will never happen because the teams going on Saturday would raise a hell of a stink about not getting a rest day (because once again, the NCAA coaches' main justification for any decision they make is "waaaaaaaah!"), but it would be great.
Elsewhere in the rules, there were a few other small changes in beam and floor requirements, but they shouldn't make all that much difference in most cases. Of note, on floor an E dance element can now satisfy up to level (or two D elements, instead of one), and the requirement to show two different shapes in dance elements on beam and floor has disappeared, which is fine because no one was paying attention to it in the first place.