All-Star Was Large Senior Realllllly Dying?

[StarshipTrooper]

yes...when it affects so few teams, yes I am. To make for more competition, I certainly am for limiting choices for a few to benefit many.

Therein lies the difference between you and I, as I vehemently disagree with this type of personal philosophy but I completely support your right to voice and believe however you feel. So, we'll agree to disagree.

 

[StarshipTrooper]

Well i think the majority of us will still talk about these teams wherever they move to. Although i have noticed that with panthers moving to small, there hasnt been much talk about them

They left their long term, historic foil, the Shooting Stars. Give WC credit, they have been in the trenches for a long time.

 

[imrichhowboutu]

So, we'll agree to disagree.

I've heard that one before :eek:

 

[cheerinfo]

Therein lies the difference between you and I, as I vehemently disagree with this type of personal philosophy but I completely support your right to voice and believe however you feel. So, we'll agree to disagree.

Sorry you disagree with the philosophy that 3 teams adjust to something that would really not hurt them at all, but would help the sport immensely to have more teams in a division than 3. Personal philosophy aside....change for the better is change for the better in my mind. Having 3 teams in a division in the country is just silly.

 

[StarshipTrooper]

Sorry you disagree with the philosophy that 3 teams adjust to something that would really not hurt them at all, but would help the sport immensely to have more teams in a division than 3. Personal philosophy aside....change for the better is change for the better in my mind. Having 3 teams in a division in the country is just silly.

It's ok, we'll just disagree. BTW, what is your association with these teams? Cheer on one, support one, coach one? I believe in individual rights over the group regardless of the perception of what is best from the group's pov. Just who I am, and I stick to it throughout my interactions.

 

[StarshipTrooper]

I've heard that one before :eek:

Spit happens.

 

[cheerinfo]

It's ok, we'll just disagree. BTW, what is your association with these teams? Cheer on one, support one, coach one? I believe in individual rights over the group regardless of the perception of what is best from the group's pov. Just who I am, and I stick to it throughout my interactions.

I have NO affiliation with any large senior team. Sure, I like to watch the division....but I won't like watching it any less with 30 kids out there than 36.

 

[StarshipTrooper]

I have NO affiliation with any large senior team. Sure, I like to watch the division....but I won't like watching it any less with 30 kids out there than 36.

Thanks. Just interested to understand your opinion.

 

[topxofxmyxgame]

A lot of interesting points of view on this topic. While I feel large senior wasn't necessarily a dying division in the same terms unlimited coed it seems obvious that large divisions in general were on the decline in comparison to small. I think a great point to make is that when "large" was at it's peak we weren't experiencing the same level of all star competition that we experience now. The skills are harder, all star itself is more expensive with the multiple national attendance, and there are more divisions to choose from when deciding the best route for your program. There was a time when large was 25, then 30, then 35, then 36. When the large division reach 35/36 there was no USASF and there were no levels that required full squad tumbling and stunting difficulty. At that time there were a mixture of athletes that today would have been considered levels 3 thru 5 on a large team in terms of stunting and tumbling. I think back then it was more about creativity and playing on each athletes strengths. Believe or not there were girls who weren't beastly tumblers on WCSS who's primary role was being an amazing base. I think what may have made large a more difficult division to field is the leveling system which requires certain skills to be competitive at that level. With the ever changing system and the addition of more difficulty year to year some bigger programs decided to go small to have a chance to win and others are small because that's all they can field hence the growth of small and decline of large.

I personally think that 32 would have been a nice transition for large. If it seems to be the best decision for levels 1-4 why not 5? Why does level 5 seem to be the only division in chaos when making a decision? I thought the industry as a whole included all the levels but from the looks of it level 5 appears to hold more weight when it comes to these types of concerns.

 

[StarshipTrooper]

A lot of interesting points of view on this topic. While I feel large senior wasn't necessarily a dying division in the same terms unlimited coed it seems obvious that large divisions in general were on the decline in comparison to small. I think a great point to make is that when "large" was at it's peak we weren't experiencing the same level of all star competition that we experience now. The skills are harder, all star itself is more expensive with the multiple national attendance, and there are more divisions to choose from when deciding the best route for your program. There was a time when large was 25, then 30, then 35, then 36. When the large division reach 35/36 there was no USASF and there were no levels that required full squad tumbling and stunting difficulty. At that time there were a mixture of athletes that today would have been considered levels 3 thru 5 on a large team in terms of stunting and tumbling. I think back then it was more about creativity and playing on each athletes strengths. Believe or not there were girls who weren't beastly tumblers on WCSS who's primary role was being an amazing base. I think what may have made large a more difficult division to field is the leveling system which requires certain skills to be competitive at that level. With the ever changing system and the addition of more difficulty year to year some bigger programs decided to go small to have a chance to win and others are small because that's all they can field hence the growth of small and decline of large.

I personally think that 32 would have been a nice transition for large. If it seems to be the best decision for levels 1-4 why not 5? Why does level 5 seem to be the only division in chaos when making a decision? I thought the industry as a whole included all the levels but from the looks of it level 5 appears to hold more weight when it comes to these types of concerns.

Great post and perspective. Thanks.

 

[topxofxmyxgame]

Great post and perspective. Thanks.

No problem! I'd love nothing more than to see large come back in popularity no matter what number it is. I guess we'll see this upcoming season how it all pans out.

 

[DJ]

I know about how much our parents pay (which isn't cheap) but it blows my mind anyone would pay $15K a season a kid. Child number 2 would have to be an athletic supporter instead of a cheerleader.

I talked to a really nice Mother from New Jersey, who was telling me how she - refinances her mortgage often so that she can afford cheerleading & her daughter was on a Youth & Junior Level 5 team. This was 2 years ago in Providence at Athletic Championships.

 

[cheerinfo]

I talked to a really nice Mother from New Jersey, who was telling me how she - refinances her mortgage often so that she can afford cheerleading & her daughter was on a Youth & Junior Level 5 team. This was 2 years ago in Providence at Athletic Championships.

That. Is. Insane. Sorry...my house and everyday living expenses come WAY before cheerleading. Holy smokes. Refinancing JUST for cheerleading? That is a little much IMO.

 

[King]

I hate to sound like I don't love cheerleading, but, refinancing my house to pay for it doesn't seem like people have their priorities straight. I feel like that teaches badly by example. Not that I wouldn't want the world for my kids, and I would sooner give up all my extra stuff, but refinancing a house seems like you arent saving for college or keeping money saved for a rainy day.... just seems risky.

 

[Mclovin]

I would move into a smaller house, trade my car in for a cheaper one, etc. to keep my kids in the sport they love. We don't have a mortgage since we rent, but I can relate to that parent. When we moved to Oklahoma we had to take out a loan to get our girls started here. Coming in mid-season we owed for everything all up front. It took me a long time to pay off that loan. The girls have even had two Christmases that they got nothing because we couldn't afford more than what we were already paying for cheer. On the opposite side of that, I have a parent who bragged on facebook that it only cost her $100 that month to heat/cool her "3,250 square foot home" yet her daughter isn't trying out again for cheer because "they can't afford it". That irks me more than anything. Yes, it is important to teach kids what's really important in life, but I also think it's important to show them how to put others before themselves, especially their own children.