Jump to content

A: Competitive Inertia


Recommended Posts

Note the following facts about current drum corps, "the traditional top 6":

SCV

First Title: 1973

Prior Year Placement: 3

Madison

First Title: 1975

Prior Year Placement: 2

BD

First Tile: 1976

Prior Year Placement: 3

Cadets

First Title: 1983

Prior Year Placement: 3

Cavies

First Title: 1992

Prior Year Placement: 2 (and 4 other top 3 finishes prior to that!)

Phantom

First Title: 1996 (Tie...boooo)

Prior Year Placement: 5 (but 7 other top 3 finishes, incl 3rd in 93 and 94)

Over-simplified conclusion: A corps must first finish in the Top 3 before being considered "qualified enough" to win, and it's much more likely if that top 3 finish was in the PRIOR YEAR.

Other facts:

Cadets has had the same leadership for over 20 yrs.

Cavies has had the same leadership for over 15 yrs.

BD has had the same leadership for over 15 yrs.

That's our recent "top 3," right?

Although the current streak of leadership years is not long for SCV, Madison and Phantom, all three have had very long-tenured directors in DCI.

Conclusion: Winning is likely a function of consistent leadership.

More facts:

The only corps to make Top 3 and NOT win are:

27th Lancers (1980)

Bridgemen (1980)

Troopers (1973)

Blue Stars (1973, 1972)

Two are gone, and the other two are back on the ladder, basically starting over.

One more corps deserves mentioning: Star of Indiana. They won in 1991 after a Top 3 finish in 1990. Although Star did not have to wait long in DCI (started 10th in 1985, and ascended quickly from there), one could argue they had very long and consistent leadership even before they were born into DCI. They certainly had [have!] financial/human-resource resources!

If I were to use this data to make a prediction of "who's most-likely to win that hasn't?", I'd first look to corps with long and consistent leadership.

Carolina Crown has had the same leadership since its inception, 1990. They are certainly going about things the right way, and they've improved regularly. With a Top 6 finish this year, LOOK OUT in the not too distant future. (but they'll have to finish in the Top 3 first, see above)

Same can be said for the Bluecoats. Although the director is young and relatively new with 5 yrs on the job, he was also a marching member and drum major. There are other key players that have been there for a long time...some since the Bluecoats inception in the early 70s. With a 4th place finish in 2006 and plenty of momentum (7 consecutive yrs of improving placement), Blooo seemed to be on the threshold of the Top 3 in 2007.

The Glassmen have had consistent leadership since 1997. With over 10 yrs experience, they should be getting some serious consideration as well.

I'm sorry if I'm remiss in mentioning Blue Knights, Crossmen and Boston Crusaders, but between them they've had maybe 3-4 Top 6 finishes all-time! They never seem to be a factor. Maybe they have leadership issues! (I didn't do the research, but I have a hunch.)

So back to the traditional Top 6: BD, SCV, Cavies, Cadets, Phantom and Madison. The last non-Top 6 corps to finish in the Top 3 was Star in 1993. The last corps before that was 2-7 and Bridgemen in 1980.

SINCE 1981, only SEVEN different corps have been in the TOP 3, and 2 of those only did it a few times (Madison and Star).

This is what I call Competitive Inertia. All of that history is almost impossible to overcome. You see it in all subjectively judged events. It's humanly impossible for judges to "blank out" all of that inertia and start with a clean slate every year, especially when corps have such consistent leadership, and that leadership is always putting the same bug in DCI's ears all the time. It takes time to build up CI, and all the while the ones with the inertia are building more, rolling downhill while the rest push uphill.

Same thing happens in baseball, when Barry Bonds' or Tony Guinn's strike zones are shrunk based on their past. They have such a history of being good, that it makes umpires give them breaks. Happens in the NBA too, especially when Jordan was at the top of his game.

When one of the Top 3 has an "off year" (ie, finishing lower than 3rd), every non-homer is usually in agreement that wherever they placed, they probably should've been lower. It's very, very difficult for judges to overcome the inertia. (And homers, too!)

Crown 2007 gets lots of props here. Do you really think Crown would've placed in the Top 3, or--heaven forbid--WIN this year, NO MATTER HOW GOOD THEY WERE?

My conclusion is: Human nature makes it impossible b/c of Competitive Inertia. For a new corps to break that inertia (ie, create their own), it will have to be in a class by itself in all captions that year. If there's any single point of contention, the new corps will never get the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, even if that corps IS clearly better, it will only make it to the Top 3...it'll have to be even better the next year in order to win.

I'm not saying the judges are unfair. I'm saying I understand their incredibly difficult task, and how their job is simplified by relying on Competitive Inertia. I don't blame them one bit. I blame the lower corps for not recognizing this, and not rising up to meet this standard.

If we're to get new blood in the top 3, then it's incumbent on those new corps to be darn good for a consistent period of time. They need to make it obvious. They need to have consistent leadership, with a clear, credible and persistent voice during critique and winter activities. Success breeds success.

Build Competitive Inertia.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that you havn't included, which would be interesting (though difficult) to study, is the return rate of members during those years mentioned. To have intertia, you must have member continuity. In all sections. Too many new members in one section will have an impact on the entire organization.

Good topic.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

also, staff

many or most of those corps w/ good CI have has at least SOME of their staff for several years keeping at least one section of that corps driving it no matter what is happening w/ the rest.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Return rate and staff are both functions of the consistent and competent leadership. The leadership must set high expectations, and hold staff accoutnable. It trickles down, since the staff leaders must also behave in the same way in order to be successful. Members return when they understand all of this, and feel the ship is heading in the right direction. (The memebrship must be treated fairly, and held accountable, and be rewarded with satisfying experiences.)

Not every corps can win, but every corps CAN strive for better competitve inertia, if they'd only look at the history, and learn from it.

Note that I don't believe for a second that leadership teams of Cadets/Cavies/BD sit around all winter and say "OK, let's win." Rather, I bet they talk about providing the highest quality of education for its membership within a set show scheme. They talk about hiring the best staff memebrs to implement the scheme. They talk about hiring the best bus drivers to make sure the kids get from Point A to Point B safely and on time. They recognize what works and what doesn't very quickly, and make changes accordingly.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once a corps wins a championship, it appears that the corps is more likely to have a championship "jump," or a championship after placing out of the top 3 in the prior year. Because the Cadets have had the most championship "leaps" (4), I say that the Cadets need the least competitive inertia to win. Corps like SCV and BD have many championships, but most have come after they have had a year or two of building competitive inertia.

Largest placement jumps to 1st

1. SCV:........7th (1980) – 1st (1981)

2. Madison:...6th (1987) – 1st (1988)

3. Cadets:....5th (1989) – 1st (1990)

3. Phantom:..5th (1995) – 1st (1996)

4. Cadets:....4th (1986) – 1st (1987)

4. Cadets:....4th (1999) – 1st (2000)

4. Cadets:....4th (2004)- 1st (2005)

4. BD:..........4th (1993) – 1st (1994)

4. Cavies:....4th (1994) – 1st (1995)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is it more important to have a high rate of returning members...or staff or both?

IMO staff continuity, not just returning over one year...is a key to a successful program (success being the program design and overall experience for the members, not the scores).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i was with a championship corps this year as a baritone player, our brass caption head was on his 15th or 16th year with the corps, and within the baritone line we had a pretty even spread of enw members and returning members

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note the following facts about current drum corps, "the traditional top 6":

SCV

First Title: 1973

Prior Year Placement: 3

Madison

First Title: 1975

Prior Year Placement: 2

BD

First Tile: 1976

Prior Year Placement: 3

Cadets

First Title: 1983

Prior Year Placement: 3

Cavies

First Title: 1992

Prior Year Placement: 2 (and 4 other top 3 finishes prior to that!)

Phantom

First Title: 1996 (Tie...boooo)

Prior Year Placement: 5 (but 7 other top 3 finishes, incl 3rd in 93 and 94)

Over-simplified conclusion: A corps must first finish in the Top 3 before being considered "qualified enough" to win, and it's much more likely if that top 3 finish was in the PRIOR YEAR.

Other facts:

Cadets has had the same leadership for over 20 yrs.

Cavies has had the same leadership for over 15 yrs.

BD has had the same leadership for over 15 yrs.

That's our recent "top 3," right?

Although the current streak of leadership years is not long for SCV, Madison and Phantom, all three have had very long-tenured directors in DCI.

Conclusion: Winning is likely a function of consistent leadership.

More facts:

The only corps to make Top 3 and NOT win are:

27th Lancers (1980)

Bridgemen (1980)

Troopers (1973)

Blue Stars (1973, 1972)

Two are gone, and the other two are back on the ladder, basically starting over.

One more corps deserves mentioning: Star of Indiana. They won in 1991 after a Top 3 finish in 1990. Although Star did not have to wait long in DCI (started 10th in 1985, and ascended quickly from there), one could argue they had very long and consistent leadership even before they were born into DCI. They certainly had [have!] financial/human-resource resources!

If I were to use this data to make a prediction of "who's most-likely to win that hasn't?", I'd first look to corps with long and consistent leadership.

Carolina Crown has had the same leadership since its inception, 1990. They are certainly going about things the right way, and they've improved regularly. With a Top 6 finish this year, LOOK OUT in the not too distant future. (but they'll have to finish in the Top 3 first, see above)

Same can be said for the Bluecoats. Although the director is young and relatively new with 5 yrs on the job, he was also a marching member and drum major. There are other key players that have been there for a long time...some since the Bluecoats inception in the early 70s. With a 4th place finish in 2006 and plenty of momentum (7 consecutive yrs of improving placement), Blooo seemed to be on the threshold of the Top 3 in 2007.

The Glassmen have had consistent leadership since 1997. With over 10 yrs experience, they should be getting some serious consideration as well.

I'm sorry if I'm remiss in mentioning Blue Knights, Crossmen and Boston Crusaders, but between them they've had maybe 3-4 Top 6 finishes all-time! They never seem to be a factor. Maybe they have leadership issues! (I didn't do the research, but I have a hunch.)

So back to the traditional Top 6: BD, SCV, Cavies, Cadets, Phantom and Madison. The last non-Top 6 corps to finish in the Top 3 was Star in 1993. The last corps before that was 2-7 and Bridgemen in 1980.

SINCE 1981, only SEVEN different corps have been in the TOP 3, and 2 of those only did it a few times (Madison and Star).

This is what I call Competitive Inertia. All of that history is almost impossible to overcome. You see it in all subjectively judged events. It's humanly impossible for judges to "blank out" all of that inertia and start with a clean slate every year, especially when corps have such consistent leadership, and that leadership is always putting the same bug in DCI's ears all the time. It takes time to build up CI, and all the while the ones with the inertia are building more, rolling downhill while the rest push uphill.

Same thing happens in baseball, when Barry Bonds' or Tony Guinn's strike zones are shrunk based on their past. They have such a history of being good, that it makes umpires give them breaks. Happens in the NBA too, especially when Jordan was at the top of his game.

When one of the Top 3 has an "off year" (ie, finishing lower than 3rd), every non-homer is usually in agreement that wherever they placed, they probably should've been lower. It's very, very difficult for judges to overcome the inertia. (And homers, too!)

Crown 2007 gets lots of props here. Do you really think Crown would've placed in the Top 3, or--heaven forbid--WIN this year, NO MATTER HOW GOOD THEY WERE?

My conclusion is: Human nature makes it impossible b/c of Competitive Inertia. For a new corps to break that inertia (ie, create their own), it will have to be in a class by itself in all captions that year. If there's any single point of contention, the new corps will never get the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, even if that corps IS clearly better, it will only make it to the Top 3...it'll have to be even better the next year in order to win.

I'm not saying the judges are unfair. I'm saying I understand their incredibly difficult task, and how their job is simplified by relying on Competitive Inertia. I don't blame them one bit. I blame the lower corps for not recognizing this, and not rising up to meet this standard.

If we're to get new blood in the top 3, then it's incumbent on those new corps to be darn good for a consistent period of time. They need to make it obvious. They need to have consistent leadership, with a clear, credible and persistent voice during critique and winter activities. Success breeds success.

Build Competitive Inertia.

err...pretty much a resounding 'yes'.....

ive heard it all before, but probably never this detailed and concise. Bravo

Edited by euponitone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think consistent staff is a little bit more important than member retention.

The right staff will be know how to teach the corps how to win. Granted it is easier to teach them when a large percentage have been through the process before and the rookies have good examples to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...