Wide Scoring Variation During Month One

We've seen a wide range of scoring variation in meet one, from judging panels that range from those that are strictly assessing the finer points of the code to other panels where mid-size errors were lightly treated.  In the first week, we saw a number of programs set all-time opening meet records, or marks among the top three all time (2004 stands out in history as the year with the loosest scoring; most program record high scores date from this time period).  We should have seen this coming: a stagnant set of NCAA Code Modifications and the limited deployment of the SCORE Board initiative have established the perfect conditions for the current environment.  The overscoring that tends to get more attention is when it is for a high profile score for a top athlete in a televised broadcast.  But in reality the amount of overscoring actually increases in impact with routines from athletes that should be scoring 9.7 or below, but are receiving higher marks.  In fact, in the loose scoring meet there tends to be a compression between the least well executed routines, and the top ones.  Because judges are naturally reluctant to give 10.0 scores willingly, getting a score above 9.9 tends to face more scrutiny than a routine that should be a 9.55 and instead gets a 9.75.   

The the normal judge assignment process has begun to mix judging panels across the country.  When these panels mix, there is a natural outcome of some moderation in overscoring.  This is because more generous judges get paired with stricter judges, and a common ground begins to emerge, both in mathematical averages and through the process of repeated conferences.  However, although a new rule was added to narrow the range (to 0.1) required for conferences for marks averaging above 9.8, it unfortunately has not always occurred.  But in the end, we have to to ask if it is too late for much improvement this season?   

More Accountability is Needed

Nearly every past season, we have seen an extreme examples of overscoring in which a fall has gone undetected by someone on a judging panel.  As a result, a new rule was added last season and clarified for this season, to enable any Chief Judge or Panel Judge to call a conference, even if the scores are within the allowed range of each other.  This occurs when there is an "impossible start value", an "Up to the Level" deduction that may or may not have been applied, or an "impossible score" was identified due to a flat execution deduction or composition deduction that was not applied.  However, this rule is only invoked when one of the two judges identify a qualifying issue.  It still allows for some particularly conspicuous examples of overscoring:  a 9.80/9.85 (panel) being awarded to a routine with a over-balanced handstand pirouette resulting in late 1/2 turn to a bent leg/flexed feet glide with the striking of the group with both feet; a second example on FX in a different meet, where the athlete had an extra step on the first acro series (in addition to a lunge) and a wild arm flailing and out of balance "abstract jump" landed with feet staggered, chest down and a hop to the side (the jump was an attempted connection to a double stag but the chest was down, creating a new deduction or the choice to classify the skill as an abstarct jump and not take a deduction).  But most examples are not as clear as these, or as publicized.  Simply deductions that are taken on routines, creating a "soft bottom" to the scores where a score below 9.6 is rare      

Clear Set of Leading Teams

In the early season, we are nevertheless seeing some early leaders emerge:  OU, LSU, Florida, Bama and UCLA.  Of these, perhaps the most unexpected has been Bama, who has gotten strong performances from its incoming frosh.  It is a much less clear picture as we get to teams 6 to 20 or so.  Teams 6 to 10 or seem to be keying up for a shot at Nationals, and some may improve enough to challenge the Top 5.  After than, the picture gets murkier.  Utah has struggled early in the season, as has last year's #6 squad MSU.  Kentucky, #10 in 2025, is currently ranked #32.  The teams best positioned for a Top 16 Regional Finalist are very difficult to predict at this point in the season.  The scoring variation, early season adjustments and new regional qualifying formula (see below) may produce some surprises at Regionals as teams that make rapid improvements in the second half of the season could provide post-season surprises.     

Early Signs of Decreasing Parity

When the NCAA moved to increase the number of scholarships from 12 to 20, in line with the House settlement, there were concerns with the impact on parity.  This is because the economic realities of athletic budgets means that most programs won't have the budget to sponsor 20 full scholarships.  And since the transfer portal remains very active and some schools were able to also increase their frosh classes in time, we are seeing the first signs of the impact.  Teams with a large number of scholarships have been able to stockpile recruits and get experienced transfers, leading to top squads with tremendous depth.  This has come at the expense of other teams, and we are starting to see the impact in parity across the country.  This is a trend to watch this season and next.    

Impact of the New National Qualifying System

This year, a new National Qualifying Score calculation is being put into place.  This is the score by which teams can qualify for post-season competition, and for seeding into the Regional meets.  The new formula takes a team's five lowest home scores, adds at least five away meets, drops the highest and the lowest, and averages the remaining.  A minimum of nine scores are required.  We are seeing some high early season variability in scores, and with only one score being dropped, we may see the Regional picture crystalize earlier than normal.  It is going to be much tougher to use a few high late season scores to elevate an average (especially home meets), when at least 9 meets will be used to qualify.    

Broadcast Commentators Are Struggling

Through the early part of the season, and via the expansion of streaming and broadcast meets, we are seeing some problematic trends emerge among commentators.  In some cases, when a score comes in lower than expected, some broadcast commentators have been unable to explain the source of the deductions.  In a few cases, incorrect or outdated explanations are given or the routine is declared "perfect in my eyes".  The standard of commentary is too often restricted to steps, handstands, flexed feet and wobbles.  Deductions that are more subtle are frequently ignored (see below) and in some cases, rules and standards of execution have shifted.   While a live broadcast and nerves could explain a commentator's inability to catch deductions, advocating for a higher score is an ill-advised tactic.  In the plurality of cases, deductions that are imagined or incorrect are much lower in number when compared to the number of missed deductions. 

To be clear, school-provided streams should be excused from this critique, as they are often not paid professionals.  Unconfirmed reports are also emerging that some networks and/or some conferences/schools have discouraged discussion of generous scores, missed deductions or being too critical.  And given the level of scoring variation we've seen, some commentators are being careful to not call out the deductions or mistakes until they are certain they will be reflected in the final score.  In general, more education and up to date training is required for many commentators that are not actively coaching or judging.     

Deductions Most Commonly Overlooked

With the wide range of scores being granted, some fans have become confused by deductions taken by stricter scoring, the type that goes beyond flexed feet, steps, bobbles, and low landings.  Here's a few of the less obvious deductions on each event, where we think the biggest score discrepancies may come into play.  Note many of these may not be taken by a given judging panel, while other panels will more strictly evaluate the same routine.  As an observer, we can only guess as to what was visible and was taken, without the benefit of seeing a scoring sheet.  But here are some of the most common less obvious deductions that may be taken.  (Note:  We are considering steps, falls, bobbles, missed handstands, flexed or crossed feet, leg separations, low landings, directional errors and touching the equipment/mat to be more blatant deductions).  

Vault:  

• A closed shoulder angle is where, upon contact with the table, the upper body is not in a fully extended position (hinging at the armpits)
• Bent arms and early turns on repulsion are often missed by fans 
• Height and distance, along with dynamics (how big or explosive a vault appears) are not assessed equally
• Body shape, including a pike down or failure to show an opening prior to landing
• Lack of rotation:  taking a step(s) opposite the direction of landing can incur an additional deduction for under rotation

Uneven Bars

• Insufficient extension of the body during glide kips.  The body must reach full extension during the glide.
• Bent arms, especially when catching a release (e.g. too close, or being used to generate momentum)
• Release height and rotation:  Was the recatch at or above bar height? Did releases with counter motion (e.g. Tkachev) show a balance between height and rotation (body fully extends after recatch)? 
• On Maloney/Shaposhnikova variants, did the back swing rise at least to horizontal to the high bar? Was the body not showing excessive arch and bent arms?
• Body shape during dismounts, like piking down during double layouts.
• Muscling of handstands and kips/swing quality (e.g, rough, labored movement):  "making the difficult look easy"

Balance Beam

• Was the connection between two skills too slow or did it stop?  One common flawed technique is to use a slow arm swing or careful extension of the lower leg before a connection. 
• A wobble, pivoting of foot or movement not in line with the direction of the beam can break a series (dance-dance, dance-acro or acro).  The judges were even sent a reminder to break connections as appropriate. 
• Leap amplitude:  Are leaps sufficiently high over the beam?  This includes small leaps like cat leaps and beat jumps.  
• Precision in leaps:  Not only was the proper shape shown (e.g., split or wolf) but were turns fully completed before landing?  Underrotated 1/4 and 1/2 turns are often overlooked, like in a switch split 1/2 turn, a popular E skill.  
• Excessive preparation or concentration pauses over 2 seconds (this is more typically seen in the early season, especially when nerves come into play)

Floor Exercise

• Shape in acrobatic skills:  is an extended position maintained on a final acrobatic skill in a series?  Is the layout held throughout the skill?  (exceptions exist for bounding skills leading to another final skill)
• Lead leg position and form on "switch" jumps:  the switch split 1/2 and switch side 1/2 are getting very popular.  The lead leg needs to show sufficient angle and should be straight
• Turn precision in jumps:  often overlooked in series of jumps, and in particular for overturned landings for switch sides and switch split 1/2s.  The feet should land in the appropriate rotation and the torso should match that position.
• Feet apart upon landing jumps or staggered feet on any landing (sometimes seen on wolf jumps and acro skills)
• Balance and leg form in double wolf turns:  these have risen in popularity as a way to get an extra D skill.

Another global deduction that may or may not be taken is the required hold of 1 second on the finish position.  The finish position on VT/UB/BB is when the legs are straightened and the arms are held overhead.  (On FX, it is the final pose).  This position must be held for one second.  Some gymnast may hold a crouched position to secure a landing then only momentarily pass through the finish positions.  Others may take a step and then forget to rejoin their legs together and hold the finish position.  And some gymnasts may begin a celebration to early or pump their fists (or other movements that run counter to the held position).  Take a look at the broadcasts -- the top teams like OU are clearly holding their finish position for the required second and even longer, to avoid any doubt: "One Gymnastics, Two".  While this deduction may not always be taken, it certainly gives a judge an easy way to deduct 0.05 points.