All-Star It's March!

[dawgshow]

What would be "necessary" mesh and cut outs?


**ACE: we're coming to your city.**

Neck hole, arm hole, torso opening

 

[DancerDude0118]

My first thought was that adding International Small Coed more closely aligns with college. So, for example, Louisville could send Large coed and All-Girl to worlds, but not Small Coed.

Plus, the way it is now, it's all or nothing for those divisions. IOC5 can have up to 12 males, IOC6 up to 16, but you really can't be competitive in those divisions if you only have a few guys. At worlds, you'll get destroyed for group stunting as opposed to partner stunting and you have to put up 8 stunts.

So I see the reasoning for it. But maybe leave it to one level or the other and not both.

ETA: I just saw they wanted to create a new senior coed division, I thought you were referring to the new open divisions. That's so unnecessary.

Well, apparently USASF heard you and decided to split the open coed divisions....

 

[luv2cheer92]

Well, apparently USASF heard you and decided to split the open coed divisions....

I just wonder if it will come and go after one season like last time they tried it.

 

[Ashley]

I just wonder if it will come and go after one season like last time they tried it.

I don't know if I was involved in all-star then. Was that when open teams were still 36? This is different since it's not changing the size of the team.

 

[DancerDude0118]

I don't know if I was involved in all-star then. Was that when open teams were still 36? This is different since it's not changing the size of the team.

It was the 2007-2008 season...... I don't remember the size though, but it applied to just IOC 5 and IO 5, no level 6.

 

[luv2cheer92]

I don't know if I was involved in all-star then. Was that when open teams were still 36? This is different since it's not changing the size of the team.

That's true, I think it was. And I think it was more based on size of team and not as much on number of boys. I don't really care either way. I think this will really help some teams, but I just hate having even more divisions.

 

[Ashley]

That's true, I think it was. And I think it was more based on size of team and not as much on number of boys. I don't really care either way. I think this will really help some teams, but I just hate having even more divisions.

Agreed. I can see the need for it, but we'll have even shallower divisions at competitions now. And it will probably hurt the already shallow all-girl divisions.

 

[DancerDude0118]

Agreed. I can see the need for it, but we'll have even shallower divisions at competitions now. And it will probably hurt the already shallow all-girl divisions.

To be fair, I've always found the IOC 5 division to be very deep..... so at least now we'll see 6 extra U.S. teams (3+3) make the finals at Worlds.

 

[Ashley]

To be fair, I've always found the IOC 5 division to be very deep..... so at least now we'll see 6 extra U.S. teams make the finals at Worlds.

True! But at local comps there's usually only a handful of teams. It stinks to compete against no one. I think I wish they had only added this for IOC5

 

[Helen uk uni cheer]

How is it going to work for bids for international teams? In the uk bids are given out the the year before worlds so there is a bid comp next weekend for 2016 worlds

 

[Ashley]

How is it going to work for bids for international teams? In the uk bids are given out the the year before worlds so there is a bid comp next weekend for 2016 worlds

Probably next year there won't be too many non-US teams. Although I know Australia gives out a bunch of it's bids in Oct-Dec or so, so it might not affect them. Canada is on a pretty similar comp schedule as the US, so it won't affect them. UK might not be able to take advantage of the new division most likely, but all girl/large coed is no different than all girl/coed currently.