The Perfect Time to Redefine – An NCAA Code of Points and Judging Concept Proposal
By Kathy Johnson Clarke
With the 2023 NCAA Season fast-approaching, 1984 Olympic team silver and balance beam bronze medalist and long-time gymnastics television commentator Kathy Johnson Clarke presents her proposal to reevaluate and redefine the NCAA scoring system.
It’s time for NCAA Gymnastics to create its own Code of Points, one tailored specifically to evaluate collegiate routines. There are measurable differences in artistic gymnastics that go beyond stuck landings, vertical handstands, and connection bonus, and the current Code of Points is like an unwieldy toolbox with too many unused tools. An NCAA Code of Points should be condensed, streamlined, and transparent so ALL judging tools are utilized for accuracy, fairness, and separation. With sky-rocketing popularity, weekly visibility on live television, and broader audience appeal comes greater scrutiny, so judging needs to be quick, comprehensive, and easily understood by experts and casual fans alike.
Having watched the World Championships in Liverpool, I am as certain as ever the timing is perfect, especially since three members of Team USA’s Gold Medal team (Jade Carey, Jordan Chiles and Leanne Wong) competed college last year and are set to start year two, and the other members (Skye Blakely and Shilese Jones) are likely NCAA bound soon! As someone who has covered both international Elite and collegiate gymnastics throughout my broadcast career, I see how mutually beneficial it is to have one foot in each world.
For years, Elite gymnastics with its open-ended D-score has emphasized and valued difficulty over artistry and execution, while NCAA gymnastics is all about maximizing scoring potential while minimizing deductions for clean execution and consistency. Interestingly, USAG’s Elite program shifted its focus this past year to improve artistry for higher international scores and developmental programs are following suit. With its popularity soaring, NCAA Gymnastics finds itself at the center of the gymnastics universe with a serendipitous opportunity to define itself and refine its scoring system.
The challenge is making changes without losing all that is truly magical about NCAA gymnastics – confident, consistent routines, high scores, and down-to-the-wire competitions with gymnasts from Level 10 and Elite backgrounds competing on a level playing field with a chance to win under manageable pressure. Some suggest increasing the difficulty requirement for bonus, but that only separates in one area and could have unintended consequences, not to mention lopsided competitions. Seeing gymnasts stressed physically and mentally to the hilt taking unnecessary risks to chase big scores would suck the joy right out of college gymnastics. Some think switching to 5 up 5 count would be the ultimate separator, and I would agree, except it might elevate stress to unmanageable distress, reduce opportunity, and tamp down any incentive to do more than the bare minimum, which is already the trend because the reward doesn’t outweigh the risk. This needs to be well thought out and eased into gently.
The quintessential 10.0 scoring system is the hallmark of college gymnastics! In fact, it’s a driving force for a lot of new viewership. Cue SportsCenter Top 10 moments! The anticipation in the arena when a gymnast hits her best routine is like nothing else and I’m thrilled for fans when a 10.0 is flashed! The angel on one side of my headset is celebrating wildly, but sometimes the devil is on the other side whispering, “I see flaws.” What if a MORE perfect routine follows? What if everyone hits their routine with no mistakes and stuck landings? They shouldn’t all tie, superior routines should win, and in a tightly contested competition every fraction of a point matters.
So, the question is how do judges create separation in a deduction-based 10.0 scoring system, reward routines with exceptional difficulty, technically masterful skills, flawless form, and superb performance quality, but not over-deduct for imperfections? Deducting for ALL errors is not only right and fair; it’s imperative for the integrity of the sport. Deducting ONLY for errors, and not flaws and deficiencies in technique, amplitude, and form is insufficient and unfair. We need balance.
As a reminder, gymnastics is a judged artistic sport. Unless that basic premise changes to tallying hits and misses like baskets, goals, touchdowns, home runs, etc. we must accept that eliminating all subjectivity in judging is not possible or even desirable. Perfection is not absolute in gymnastics. It’s a relative measure because flaws and deficiencies, often referred to as built-in deductions, are deviations from the standard of perfection and deductible in the current Code of Points. They always have been, so I’m not reinventing the wheel here. In fact, there is a multitude of judging tools with “up to” deductions to effectively separate in every important area of artistic gymnastics. We should use them or lose them. The key is selecting the most important ones and making it MANDATORY for every judge to use every tool in every area.
In a 10.0 system there are two ways to separate average, good, exceptional, and superior routines using both quantitative and qualitative measures. Add or subtract. Award or deduct. Trust me, I have gone back and forth obsessively between two concepts – a Super Bonus system which adds or a Reverse Bonus system to subtract using a sliding scale of micro-deductions. Both methods reward masterful technique, optimal amplitude and extension, flawless form, and superior performance quality, while not being overly punitive for minor, but repetitive flaws. And in either scenario judges use event-specific judging tools to notate cumulative imperfections during the routine and evaluate the level of mastery based on the degree and frequency of flaws and deficiencies, but which method is most likely to gain support? Since the 10.0 system is deduction based and this is merely a conversation starter, I will present my concept for a Reverse Bonus Scale of Micro-Deductions.
