I Marched Before Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 I just thought about this as I was posting in another thread. This year, I seem to be more impressed with the 5th-9th range than the typical 1st-4th place corps. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I didn't not like 1-4 at all (especially since I'm biased towards my alumni that's in that category), it's just that I feel that 5th-9th really stepped up this summer. Major kudos to the Bluecoats this summer - I love seeing them succeed. They really are incredible people. Anyone else feel the same way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssorrell Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 5th - 9th are considered "lower" corps? I wish my corps could be a "lower" corps! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Marched Before Posted August 30, 2005 Author Share Posted August 30, 2005 (edited) I had an original post, but deleted everything and started from scratch. I forgot to include the following: I'm only talking about the top 12 because that's all that I listen to (not that I don't appreciate what is being offered outside of the top 12 {and the cascades, just because those are some really great kids}, it's just that I know only the top 12 corps, and I'm only going to talk about what I know). Thanks for quickly jumping on a flaw in my post instead of praising the activity - which was the original intent of this thread. <**> Edited August 30, 2005 by I Marched Before Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomR Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 he was just pointing out that there really isn't a lower range of corps in the top 12. Your post is appreciated. ~>conner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PR_ducky Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 I have to say that I was very impressed not only with the lower top 12, but also down to 16 and 17th. Those corps were scoring in a range that would have had them in Finals my rookie year (86). I have been out of corps for a while but am getting caught back up. I was really impressed with how many good corps there are now. When I marched there were a lot of them, then things thinned out thru the mid 90s, but it looks like there has been a regrowth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomR Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 yes, and in all divisions ~>conner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssorrell Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Thanks for quickly jumping on a flaw in my post instead of praising the activity - which was the original intent of this thread. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry...I wasn't pointing out what I considered a flaw, but rather an unintended offensive remark by calling those corps "lower". I certainly don't think that any member of Crown, Bluecoats, Boston, etc, would consider themselves a member of a "lower" placed corps. I AM praising the activity...by claiming that those corps are not "LOWER" by ANY standard! Lower placing corps in Div 1 would be those in the last few places, like 18th, 19th, 20th...I think most would agree with that assessment. 5th - 9th is quite successful! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc03 Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Sorry...I wasn't pointing out what I considered a flaw, but rather an unintended offensive remark by calling those corps "lower". I certainly don't think that any member of Crown, Bluecoats, Boston, etc, would consider themselves a member of a "lower" placed corps.I AM praising the activity...by claiming that those corps are not "LOWER" by ANY standard! Lower placing corps in Div 1 would be those in the last few places, like 18th, 19th, 20th...I think most would agree with that assessment. 5th - 9th is quite successful! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They ARE lower by one standard. They are lower than 1-4. The title of the thread was a bit deceiving, but I don't think the original poster meant anything by the term lower, although midlevel might have been a better term. "Successful" placements are all relative to the corps. Ask the Blue Devils or SCV if they had a competitively successful year. Then ask Bluecoats. That isn't to take anything away from any of the corps that performed this year, especially since I haven't seen any except my own. I hope that everyone in every corps realizes that it's not about placements or scores or trophies. This summer was about a lot more than one night in August. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 i'd agree that d1 as a whole seemed a lot more exciting top to bottom this year. some of my favorites were crossmen, scades, and magic and none of those were even finalists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMichael1230 Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 5th - 9th are considered "lower" corps?I wish my corps could be a "lower" corps! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> LOL, right ?? Lower corps ?? Iwas expecting to talk about Magic, Esperanza and the like....... ~G~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.