liebot Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 (edited) Which is why Div. I should have a lower age limit of 18. right, so then college-age students who can't afford to march Div 1, can't give up their summer job, or have any other general commitments can march where? you would basically kill the div 2 activity if you made a rule like this. edit: i'm going on the assumption here that you meant div 2 and not div 1 Edited December 28, 2005 by TTitans909 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XxDrumCorpsFanxX Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 right, so then college-age students who can't afford to march Div 1, can't give up their summer job, or have any other general commitments can march where? you would basically kill the div 2 activity if you made a rule like this.edit: i'm going on the assumption here that you meant div 2 and not div 1 good point, and i thought i heard earlier in this thread or another thread that most of academy wasn't all college people that it was students that were younger than 18? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 ?Do you mean division 2? I don't get it... I meant Div. 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 (edited) right, so then college-age students who can't afford to march Div 1, can't give up their summer job, or have any other general commitments can march where? you would basically kill the div 2 activity if you made a rule like this.edit: i'm going on the assumption here that you meant div 2 and not div 1 To reiterate, I said limit Div. 1 to a minimum membership age of age 18 (or perhaps 17) and current max; no limit other than the current max age to Div. 2. The kids you are referring to could still march Div. 2. This would tend to reinforce the concept of Div. 1 corps as college age, higher skill demand, larger budget, and nationally touring vs. Div. 2 as high school (and above) age, appropriate budget levels and regionally touring/competitive organizations. The way Academy has approached this is an excellent example in terms of limiting themselves to regional competition as their organization evolved. Overall, this could lead to greater stability at the Div. 2 level, continue/promote the creation of cadet/feeder (Div. 2) corps by stable Div. 1 organizations, and lead to the creation of regionally competitive circuits at the Div. 2 level which ultimately lead to the greater long term stability for the entire activity. More kids competing at the Div. 2 level will lead to the long-term strengthening of existing Div. 1 organizations, and creation of new Div. 1 corps in the long run. I think WGI's model for the guard activity serves as a model for this to some extent. Just my $.02. Edited December 28, 2005 by Achilles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liebot Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 To reiterate, I said limit Div. 1 to a minimum membership age of age 18 (or perhaps 17) and current max; no limit other than the current max age to Div. 2. The kids you are referring to could still march Div. 2.This would tend to reinforce the concept of Div. 1 corps as college age, higher skill demand, larger budget, and nationally touring vs. Div. 2 as high school (and above) age, appropriate budget levels and regionally touring/competitive organizations. The way Academy has approached this is an excellent example in terms of limiting themselves to regional competition as their organization evolved. Overall, this could lead to greater stability at the Div. 2 level, continue/promote the creation of cadet/feeder (Div. 2) corps by stable Div. 1 organizations, and lead to the creation of regionally competitive circuits at the Div. 2 level which ultimately lead to the greater long term stability for the entire activity. More kids competing at the Div. 2 level will lead to the long-term strengthening of existing Div. 1 organizations, and creation of new Div. 1 corps in the long run. I think WGI's model for the guard activity serves as a model for this to some extent. Just my $.02. Ok, I understand. I guess I misinterpreted the definition of lower age limit. As a member of a div 2 corps I'm torn between the reality of recruiting for a div 2 corps and the idea that (i believe) a member should be able to go wherever they have the talent to march. I'm not sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supkdawg Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 dont try to fix it, if it aint broke.. leave it as it iz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobe Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 dont try to fix it, if it aint broke.. leave it as it iz A-men Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asvab Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 dont try to fix it, if it aint broke.. leave it as it iz No philosophical approach has been proven as deadly as that one. "if it 'ain't broke, don't fix it..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baristeve Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 Well if you do that then you permanently brand all div 2 corps as FEEDER corps... which is not the wish of a lot of division 2 corps... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 (edited) what does age have to do with it? sincerely, the 20 year old rookie Edited December 29, 2005 by bari_benzo 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.