NCAA Coaches Address Changes in College Men’s Gymnastics

NCAA Coaches Address Changes in College Men’s Gymnastics

By Christy Sandmaier
Vice President & Co-Publisher

NCAA Coaches Address Changes in College Men’s Gymnastics

By the Team at Inside Gymnastics

The 2025 men’s NCAA season will see not only a new Code of Points in play but also changes to the format of men’s college meets. The head-to-head dual meet format, first introduced in 2021, is now optional, rather than required, but the more major shifts are going from 5-up, 5-count on each event, to 4-up, 4-count, with a new maximum of 12 competing athletes per team, down from 15 in past seasons.

Those who pushed for the changes argue it will make meets move faster—men’s meets will now feature the same number of routines as women at 24—and increase overall parity, as well as work as a cost-cutting measure at a time when non-revenue collegiate sports are widely seen as in peril due to the shifting NCAA landscape.

Opponents mourn the loss of competitive opportunity, especially with men’s collegiate roster spots already severely limited by how few programs exist.

Inside asked all 15 NCAA men’s gymnastics head coaches for their opinion on these significant shifts in competitive format, and how they feel the new rules will help, or hurt, the sport, and received a wide range of thoughtful, interesting answers…

Chuck Chmelke, University of Nebraska (15th season as head coach)

“I was not in favor, and I think it was a horrible decision. I understand the rationale, but I think it’s a terrible direction for our sport, period. 

“As to how it will impact Nebraska…Well, it won’t help us at all. We’re a solid, deep team. We have a large number of good guys, many of whom now aren’t going to get a chance to compete very much, and I think that’s wrong. 

“Collegiate gymnastics is about the team, and I think all the guys on that team should have a realistic opportunity to compete. And, I feel that so strongly, that that’s still what we’re going to try to do, even if we sacrifice some scores in the process. Everyone on this team works hard and deserves their chance to compete.

“Taking away six spots per meet and doing it so fast, with very little discussion or reflection…I might end up being wrong, but I feel we, as a group, tend to make these decisions too quickly, and don’t necessarily consider all the impacts they’ll have— the long-term repercussions—and, in my opinion, 4-up is simply not enough people. I think we’ll struggle, and many other teams will too, to keep team morale up because of that loss of competitive opportunity. 

“I think it will bring scores closer together, and could result in some upsets along the way, which I guess can be good, in terms of excitement, but I wasn’t in favor of it, I didn’t vote for it, and I think it’s horrible.”

Matthew Davis, Springfield College (8th season as head coach)

“For our school it’s important for us to have a larger roster, because the size of our enrollment is a big part of our value. That’s the big difference between DIII and DI.

“I think 4-up, 4-count will make it more exciting. Every routine counts, and the smaller number puts even more emphasis on having a good competition. I just talked to my team about this today, telling them there are 6 fewer routines to make up for a fall, so hitting and consistency are going to be even more important. 

“As for 12-man competitive limit, I understand why we did it, but I’m not a huge fan. I’d really like the choice to compete more members of your team. But, overall, I think the changes will help our sport. With the new Code and these changes, I think we’re going to see some close meets and that’s always good for the sport.

“I do think we’ll see some more parity at the margins. It will make everyone a little bit closer, but there is a wide spectrum of difficulty between, say, Stanford and the ECAC teams, and that gap will still be there. 

“It’s a lot of changes at once—the new format and the new Code of Points. I’m not a huge fan of changing too much from FIG, but I know allowing for a little less difficulty, where C-skills meet the element requirement, is probably better for a lot of teams right now, as we get used to the new rules. I can see this being modified back after we all get used to the new Code—that would be my preference. After all, even if a D-skill is the standard, it doesn’t mean you have to do a D. The math doesn’t always work out if you lose more than you gain by doing a more difficult skill. That’s a coaching choice I’d be comfortable making.”

Thom Gliemi, Stanford University (23rd season as head coach) 

A positive aspect of the new 4-up, 4-count format is that it will make competitions easier to manage, with meets likely finishing in under two hours. This has been a concern for television coverage, and the CGA (coaches’ association) primarily voted for this format for that reason. The 12-man roster should not pose an issue, as most teams rarely utilized a full 15-man competition roster.

“That said, I am not a fan of the 4-up, 4-count format because it limits opportunities for athletes to compete. I also believe the 5-up, 5-count format is a better representation of the strongest teams, as it demands greater depth.

“Overall, I think NCAA coaches missed an opportunity to make the sport more accessible to fans and television friendly. There was discussion about returning to the 10.0 scoring system, which would simplify the sport for spectators. While I understand the reluctance to deviate from the FIG Code of Points, I believe a shift is warranted. The current FIG Code has significant flaws, making it difficult for fans to understand and follow the sport. Those familiar with gymnastics can see the gaps in the Code, as well as the missed opportunity to create a system that resonates more effectively with audiences.”

Randy Jepson, Penn State (32nd season as head coach)

“Going to 4-up, 4-count makes for a very exciting meet. The downside, with both that and the 12-man competitive size, is limiting opportunities, which is a nasty thing for us, since we don’t have enough opportunities as is. But, when you look at the changing landscape of collegiate athletes, if we want to thrive and move forward, we need to make our meets where there is parity, where teams without all the bells and whistles can still make a run at bigger schools. Creating Championships that come down to the wire, and a TV product that is tight and compelling to watch, even without knowing a lot about gymnastics, is the goal.

“If we need to revisit the numbers in the future, we can do that. But, in the end, we were dealing with programs that were in very real danger if they didn’t have a realistic chance to be successful with smaller rosters and less funding, and this was an olive branch towards keeping those programs around and healthy. We needed to make a statement to our administrators that we were willing to make changes to be financially viable, and I think we also put ourselves in a good place to be more marketable to television; to tell a good story. And I think all that helps our longevity, which is everyone’s goal.”

Josh Loeser, Air Force Academy (5th season as head coach)

“The thing that really spurred the format change and made it more urgent is that we were worried about losing programs, and this is what they were telling us would reduce costs and help viability. 

“Personally, I’ve been an advocate to make it smaller since 2013. For years they told was what kept us alive was a pipeline to the Olympics and, in my mind, if that’s the case, why don’t we do an Olympic model? If it’s what keeps us alive shouldn’t with be as close to that as possible? And reducing the number of people that compete helps our other problems: cost and time. It makes it a lot more affordable, and it makes competitions shorter. I thought it solved a lot of issues people say we have.

“It does reduce opportunities for athletes to compete, but keeping a program around provides more opportunities than we’re losing. I think we’re trying to work that balance. If lowering the number of competitors and competing roster size opens the door for more schools to start a program, that’s a good thing, because if we keep going in the direction we have been, we’re going to have zero opportunities. 

“Optically, the scores will look closer, which could be more exciting. I don’t think it will increase actual parity between us and, say, Stanford, but for the mid-tier teams we are going to be much closer, and you could see some movement there. But, yes, everyone’s scores are going to be a little closer, just because there are fewer scores. And, honestly, that’s usually what people want when they say parity—the illusion that we’re getting closer.

“Like, with the 10.0 system—which I think we should never do, because it would be a disaster—but all the presentations we get about the 10.0 are about how that would make our scores look closer. It’s all optics, not reality. Top teams winning by one point, instead of ten. I think this change is a good in between that still allows us to not totally screw up our scoring.

“I’m also a big fan of making our meets shorter, for fan experience, but also athlete wellbeing.

“I think, in the situation we are in, this was the best thing we could have done. I’m not even sure if it’s enough. We could have gone to 3-up, 3-count to make ourselves even more viable in the current climate.”

J.T. Okada, University of California, Berkeley (8th season as head coach)

“We used to be at 6-up, 4-count, then it was 6-up, 5-count for the first half of the season; 5-up, 5-count for the rest. Then we went to 5-5 for the entire season, and now 4-up, 4-count, so format change is not unprecedented.

“It does narrow the number of routines we can put out, and increases the competitiveness within your team, especially with a 12-man competitive roster. As we start to put together lineups, we’re realizing just how tight that can be. We’re playing around with a lot of different combinations, seeing how many event specialists we can reasonably take and still fill out all 24 routines. We’re still in the process of figuring that all out, but it’s not so drastic we won’t adjust.

“In general, I would prefer to have more competitive spots, so we can spread them out across the events. I think 15 allows for more specialists, which increases opportunity, while keeping us in line with the women’s competitive numbers and still making us more TV friendly. I understand and support the reasons we made the change, but also don’t want to limit opportunity, so would have preferred a bit of a buffer in competitive roster size.

“I’m also happy we are no longer required to do the head-to-head format in dual meets. I really appreciate being able to have that one-touch before each event. I think it’s very important. It’s also not the format we use at conference or NCAA champs, so it feels like a no brainer [to make it optional].”

Colin Payne, Simpson College (4th season as head coach)

“I think the format changes are going to be largely positive for our sport. The 4-up, 4-count and 12-man roster hits several marks for us. It allows teams who may struggle with budget limitations to remain competitive, even with smaller numbers. It simultaneously allows those with larger rosters to rest athletes, increasing athlete health and safety throughout the season. 

“It should shorten the length of a meet and decrease the overall amount of action at any one competition. Hopefully, this creates an easier to follow product and more opportunities to make competitions digestible to fans. Finally, it creates a comparable product to women’s gymnastics, in terms of total routines performed and event timing

To be completely honest, I would like to see us go even further and push for a 3-up, 3-count model and remove the competitive roster limit. I think this would provide all the benefits above while allowing us to do even more creative things with the presentation of our competitions. 

“3-up, 3-count would allow us to create requirements around competing your entire roster throughout the season. Utilize the head-to-head competition format while allowing one touches before each event. Increase the number of competitions, while decreasing the length of the season. You could do multiple meets per week, using different athletes. Think of it more like a baseball team, where not everyone gets to play every game. Our sport is a heavy lift on the body and this way we could keep guys healthier longer. I honestly don’t want anybody on my team to compete in every single meet of the season, because they just get beat up.

“I also feel like our season could use a more cohesive throughline. Have a more defined early season timeline, where we have out-of-conference competitions and qualifier events that maybe don’t mean as much to the post-season, and then move into intense intra-conference competition after, say, Winter Cup, with big meets every week right through to conference championships, more in line with the way other NCAA sports work. Make late season meets matter more.

“I’m not as in favor of the 12-man maximum, because I don’t know why we’d put artificial limits on ourselves. The individual conferences and the NCAA are already going to make roster maximums and, as coaches, we should be pushing for as much opportunity as we can, so why set limits lower than that maximum?

“Being enrollment driven, our sport’s value to Simpson is the number of athletes we can enroll each year. So, our value goes up the more athletes we bring in, as do the resources we have to build the program. 

“At the end of the day I am excited for 2025. Between the 4-up, 4-count and 12-man changes, the new Code of Points, and the opportunity to showcase our championship on ESPN, I think this is going to be a very exciting season. There are a lot of reasons for optimism.”

Zach Peters, Greenville University (4th season as head coach)

“I think, at the end of the day, we made this decision because it was best for the future of the sport. Not necessarily best right now, or for our athletes today, but for the sport as a whole and its evolution, which hopefully includes bringing in new programs. Ultimately, I think it was the right call to make.

“There are certainly challenges. We have a 25-man roster and the very real fact of that is that 13 guys are going to be left at home every weekend, and that’s a really hard thing when you have a team full of guys that are fully bought in, and every single one of them is working very hard, doing exactly what I ask. When I have to look at over half the team and say, ‘You worked hard, but you aren’t making it,’ that’s an extremely difficult conversation. 12-man is also very, very hard, numbers-wise, to fit your top 4 guys on each event.  You can be top 4 on 2 events, or even the best guy on 1 event, but still not make enough of a difference to justify a spot on that 12-man squad. That will affect opportunity and even, to some extent, ability to showcase the best on each event, though I still think that it was the right decision.

“Meets should be shorter, and we will now have the same number of routines as the women. And the cost savings are real. I’m saving at least one hotel room per trip, plus the cost of travel and food. That’s thousands of dollars, which adds up over time, especially when you have a small budget, and I do think a lower cost of entry will be an incentive for new programs.

“At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves, ‘Will this help us be here in 10 years?’ And, yes, I think it will help. I can’t know for sure, but at least I’ll know we tried to do something to adapt to the new financial realities.” 

Mike Powell, College of William & Mary (9th season as head coach)

“We’ve already seen here at William & Mary how much better this format pairs with women’s gymnastics, just from running our joint intrasquad. We actually finished before them, which was a first. It was pretty eye opening in terms of the difference, and how it can be a positive, particularly in making more strategic partnerships with the women’s side of our sport.

“We talk about how there might be fewer opportunities, but if making this move preserves existing teams and makes it easier for teams to be added, then it can hopefully be a net gain. I think that was our strong incentive to move as quickly as we did. Everything in college athletics is changing quickly. Now that it appears we’re getting the House settlement, everyone’s roster is going to be capped at a maximum of 20.

“I can say that, so far, the impacts on my team are almost all positive, largely because we have one of the smallest rosters in the NCAA. These changes were made to make it more possible for teams like ours to be more competitive, while managing budget constraints and equity numbers, and they seem to be doing that.

“We have to balance everyone’s needs. On the one side we have DI programs who need to cut budgets and roster sizes, and the other we’ve got DIII teams, which are more enrollment driven, and we need to have rules that work for all us. So, there’s always that push-pull. And I do think we make decisions trying to accommodate all those needs, and the needs of the sport, because we all want to assure that our sport keeps growing.”

J.D. Reive, United States Military Academy (2nd season as head coach)

“It was a preemptive response to programs fighting for survival in this new NCAA landscape. To be able to go to their administration and show a better financial picture, by fielding a team with fewer guys, while still being competitive. 

“There’s the fear we can make ourselves so small we’re irrelevant, and we’re trying to balance that with the financial reality that smaller is cheaper, and right now a lot of programs are telling us they need to be cheaper.

“I’m 100% an Olympics guy and think that anything we can do that brings us closer to the FIG standard, is the way we should be going. So, I also supported it because this more closely aligns us with at least the spirit of 3-up, 3-count. Yes, it lessens opportunities, but if we lose programs, we’re losing far more opportunities than just one routine per event. I understand the kickback by those worried about that loss, but at a certain point we must change.

“I also think that, for teams like Army, teams that are currently in the bottom half of the field, realistically it should allow us a little more competitive favor. That combined with the [new Code’s] 8-skill routines—where we may be taking out A-B skills, top teams are losing D-E skills—plus only needing to field 4 routines, rather than a 5th that might be more shallow…Well, theoretically, that should result in seeing better gymnastics across the board, and increase parity.

“I don’t think you’ll see much change at the top of the field. Teams that have National Team members, Olympians—they can put up 6, 7 routines and still kick butt—but for us at the Academies and the ECAC teams, I’m optimistic this will help make us all closer, and I’m interested to see how it plays out this season.

“I’m on my third NCAA institution, my second as a head coach. When I [was at Iowa], we were talking about shrinking routines to 8 skills, how to make meets move faster, and we’d been talking about those things a long time. Then, right when I come back, it’s all happening. We have those things we’ve been talking about, and my perspective is, ‘Wow, this is awesome.’ But other people are already saying it’s not enough, wanting more, and I don’t really understand that.

“You’re never going to have a perfect system. I really want to see how this plays out before we start changing anything else. I was one of the people who voted against allowing C-skills to count for element groups. I wanted us to be straight FIG. I’d love for us to commit to keeping our rules consistent for an entire quad. For giving things time, and compiling data so we can better assess what worked, and what didn’t. We shouldn’t be afraid of change but change for change’s sake is also not the answer.

“I say that because there are always unintended consequences. Always. Right now, I’m getting ready to run the West Point Open, a Winter Cup qualifier, and because we somewhat modified the rules, we now must have judges come up with two sets of scores—one for the NCAA part of the event, and a separate, FIG score for qualifying. And I can tell you it’s a logistical nightmare. We get to be the guinea pigs for this, and it’s not at all simple or easy.

“I think it’s very important that we all remember we are gymnastics, and in gymnastics the Olympics are what everyone thinks of, first and foremost. Whatever we do has to be done with that in mind.”

Daniel Ribeiro, University of Illinois (3rd season as head coach)

“I think it’s the most incredible change we’ve ever made. We’re just about 35 years too late. If we’d done it then, maybe we’d have 80 teams remaining. There has been this obsession with short-term ‘opportunities’ and that has almost caused the extinction of our sport. 

“We must have smaller rosters, smaller competition times, smaller everything—the smaller we are, the cheaper we are, and the less we are impacting both the financial burden of the university and its Title IX compliance, which are the two reasons we hear over and over for eliminating programs.

“This will also help with the expansion of men’s college gymnastics with new programs. Now, we can target schools more easily, as the cost of startup is smaller. You could have a roster of 12-13 guys and still be competitive. And it’s very important to my Athletic Director, and every other Athletic Director, that their sports are competitive. 

“Yes, for the individual athletes it’s unfortunate that, at this one moment in time, there may be a few fewer opportunities for them to compete, but that’s being done with a goal of having hundreds of more opportunities in the future, as we create new programs. Those that are complaining are thinking short term, and those supporting it recognize the long-term benefits.

“Meets are going to be shorter. More exciting. We’ve had a format not built for TV, and this fixes that problem. We’re going to fit into a nice two-hour window, where every routine is going to be televised. Fans are finally going to get to watch a sporting event they can follow.

“You go to watch the Big 10 and NCAA Championships, and you’re seeing one routine here, another there. Can you imagine telling people to watch a football game where they only televised a third of the plays? And, if we need to change the judging format so that we can go even faster, then we should do that, too.

“I think we should go even smaller, to 3-up, 3-count. The smaller we are, the cheaper we are, and the more programs we can add. At some point we must stop focusing on survival and focus on growth and take risks to grow. At this point, we have almost nothing to lose, so there’s very little actual risk.

“The best part of this format is it allows the bigger schools (DI) to carry smaller rosters, while allowing the smaller schools (DIII, non-scholarship) to carry bigger numbers, since the calculus is different.

“In terms of opportunity, I’m even thinking about running double headers. I almost did it this year but definitely want to do it next. Where one group of Illinois gymnasts compete against, say, Greenville in the afternoon, and then another group goes against, for instance, Oklahoma that same night. We can have more meets! Fewer athletes competing means tearing down their bodies less. Schools can have A-teams and B-teams and use them in different scenarios.

“Routines are also getting smaller, which I think is great. Now, I think the NCAA needs to move to 6-skill routines. If you had 6 skills, and 3-up, 3-count, you could be like baseball. Play a 3-game series over a 2-day period. It’s basically like doing half routines, so you could filter in a lot of guys without getting hurt. 

“If you have a creative mind, there are ways to not lose anything with this format change, while gaining a lot. The downsides are less guys competing and I just gave the answer to how we solve that. I think a lot of the coaches are traditionalists, and just like things the way they were and don’t want to ever take chances.”

Rustam Sharipov, Ohio State University (15th season as head coach)

“I think we all felt like this was something we needed to do, that we had to do, but I’m not really happy about it. I think we will see if it was a good decision, or the right decision, but there’s no way around the fact that we’re cutting opportunities for kids. That’s the truth. We are lessening their chances to compete.

“At the same time, I think being on ESPN for the NCAAs is a very good thing, and I do think this will help make our television product better. I want that TV coverage, and think it’s important, but it’s also scary to change our sport for TV with no guarantee it will lead to more coverage—volunteering to make ourselves smaller. 

“I’d say I’m concerned, but hopeful. If 4-up, 4-count makes us a better product for TV, and we get more coverage because of that, I think that will be a great thing, but I really, really wish we had more opportunity for the athletes. Because there are a lot of gymnasts—good gymnasts—who work their whole lives who have nowhere to go to college, or who go to college, but now won’t be able to compete. 

“We’re excited after the successful Olympic year to continue that momentum for men’s gymnastics here in the NCAA. I hope that people understand we are, first and foremost, an Olympic sport. We can’t forget that. The further we move away from the Olympic rules, the faster we’ll be gone. I really believe that. The Olympics are the ultimate goal of our sport, and the way we remain an NCAA sport. The way we get the respect from our community and athletic departments is by putting our guys on the world stage. By maintaining the reputation that the NCAA has around the world, of this very high-level competition, where the best can compete, train to get better, get an education, and then go have success for the USA, or other countries. That’s what we want to be known for and how we’re going to continue to succeed at the collegiate level.”

Mark Williams, University of Oklahoma (26th season as head coach)

“Coaches were put in a difficult position where the new reality of college athletics—conference realignment, NIL and the House settlement on the horizon—is that there isn’t as much money for the non-revenue sports. That has been made clear to all of us, and we’re all belt tightening. The format changes should make Championships move more quickly and be more TV friendly, while at the same time addressing some of those financial constraints and roster management issues.

“Do I like it? No. I think it takes away opportunities for gymnasts across the country that we absolutely will not get back, and I worry about it having a trickle-down effect on the number of kids who stay in, or ever start, the sport. I’d personally rather have left the 15-man competitive limit, allowing individual coaches to decide how many athletes they travel. Continually taking action to make ourselves smaller and smaller, to me, defeats the team competition aspect of college athletics, and in some ways feels like we’re eliminating ourselves. 

“We made the compromise in hopes of survival, but there’s no denying it will have a devastating impact on individuals. OU senior Nikolai Kolesnikov is a perfect example of a guy who has continued to improve every year and expended huge effort to earn a line-up spot, and suddenly he’s faced with the fact that top 5 is now top 4. As a guy on a small scholarship, who graduated in December, he had to make the difficult choice between staying an extra semester and paying for grad school or moving into a full-time job. In the end, he chose to retire from the sport he’d been doing since birth, despite being oh-so-close to his goals. Obviously, that’s a very personal and life-changing decision, and the sort of thing that keeps you up at night as both a coach, and someone voting on these rule changes. Nikolai isn’t the only one in this position. There are a lot of gymnasts that competed regularly last season who will struggle to make line-ups this year.

“We also voted to allow C-skills to fulfill the element group requirement with no additional penalties, as an NCAA modification, for parity. I wasn’t totally against doing that, at least for this first year of the new Code, but it has created a situation where NCAA events can no longer be used to advance to USA Gymnastics events, so any collegiate meet that serves as a qualifier to, say, Winter Cup, will have to calculate two scores (NCAA and FIG). It’s become a complication that could impact NCAA athletes’ chances at USA success. If this relatively minor modification has caused this kind of roadblock with Elite qualifying, imagine what would happen if NCAA men went to a 10.0, as has been repeatedly proposed?

“Despite all its flaws, the FIG has created an environment that produces exciting gymnastics, and I think the success and virality of the men at this year’s Paris Olympics, using the open-ended Code, proves that the scoring system has nothing to do with popularity. That’s the sort of success we should be building upon. I just don’t think it’s my job as an NCAA coach to rewrite the rules of our sport.”

Yuan Xiao, University of Michigan (4th season as head coach)

“I think we all knew we needed to make changes and that 4-up, 4-count is a better way for every team to have more depth. To avoid the injury cycle, by resting more athletes and experimenting with lineups early in the season, to see who has the stamina and potential for later in the year. 

“I think we could even go to 3-up, 3-count if we needed to, due to roster sizes getting smaller. In terms of opportunity, I don’t think it’s any different than putting together a World team. There, you only use a specialist if you know they can win a medal or make a real impact. It’s always a balance between one-event guys and all-arounders.

“I expect teams to employ new strategies, and that we’ll see a greater emphasis on using all-stars, as fewer routines mean that each performance carries more weight. This could make meets more exciting for fans to watch, as well as saving on time and travel costs.”

Subscribe to Inside Gymnastics for 3 Years and receive a free gift!

No Comments

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Sign Up and Save!

Sign Up and Save!

Sign Up for our newsletter and receive a code for 20% off anything on shopinsidenation.com!

SUCCESS! Use code "NEWS" for a 20% discount on shopinsidenation.com!