A: Competitive Inertia

[Slow Adam]

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.

...not to mention the top 3-4 corps essentially have their pick of the litter when it comes to rookies.

[madscout96]

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

...

Consistent successful staff begets member retention.

[skluyuk]

Consistent successful staff begets member retention.

Haha...nice sig.

[Peel Paint]

bruckner8, you make some good points, and I think some of these factors probably are related as you suggest. Also, there's a strong "common sense" component to what you say. But be careful about having too much confidence in the conclusions you draw, because your approach can be misleading. Think of all the times in history that "common sense" analysis led "experts" scientifically astray. You're flirting with the same issue here, for two reasons. One, you're backtesting data, which is useful, but can only suggest a past relationship; backtesting is of limited value in predicting the future, as most investors learn the hard way. Sometimes other factors are at work that you miss when you put too much faith in backtesting. And secondly, remember that two factors shown to be related can never, by that fact alone, prove that the one that came first caused the second, even in part.

Here's one example. You make a case for a statistical relationship between consistent leadership and winning DCI. You cite the Cavaliers as an example. The Cavaliers first won in 1992. At that time, Jeff Fiedler had only been running the corps... for one year, as I recall. Yeah, he'd been with the corps for a good while, and many components of the team were there, but still, there may be other factors you have yet to hit on that are at work. I can't think of a specific example off the top of my head, but there are likely other corps where there's been similar patterns of leadership consistency to Cavaliers in 1992 in corps that have yet to win once let alone multiple times.

I do agree that there is a competitive inertia which at times is for me... frankly... colossally boring. It's very predictable in general terms, and this is not a good thing for DCI. It shouldn't be as hard as it apparently is to crack into the top 3 or win with one really great finals performance or year/show. One of the things that makes the NFL so much fun and so competitively exciting is a system of scheduling games and drafting new talent that makes it much harder to repeat a championship a second year in a row than to win one time. How that could translate to DCI, I have no idea, but I miss it here.

Edited November 28, 2007 by Peel Paint

[Contra Mom]

You are so right Peel Paint! I don't think it should be that difficult to break into the top 3 either. I don't think the top 3 corps that were mentioned earlier should have an advantage each year just because of their previous titles. It should be determined by their show & performance for that year. Unfortunately, the DCI judges don't seem to look at it that way.

[dbc03]

I do agree that there is a competitive inertia which at times is for me... frankly... colossally boring. It's very predictable in general terms, and this is not a good thing for DCI. It shouldn't be as hard as it apparently is to crack into the top 3 or win with one really great finals performance or year/show. One of the things that makes the NFL so much fun and so competitively exciting is a system of scheduling games and drafting new talent that makes it much harder to repeat a championship a second year in a row than to win one time. How that could translate to DCI, I have no idea, but I miss it here.

A draft is a terrible idea because the performers are PAYING to march, not the other way around. As a member if I had been told "You have to march at this corps" and it wasn't the corps I wanted to march I wouldn't have marched. Different corps have different atmospheres and philosophies, there is no reason to try to make it one size fits all.

[dbc03]

You are so right Peel Paint! I don't think it should be that difficult to break into the top 3 either. I don't think the top 3 corps that were mentioned earlier should have an advantage each year just because of their previous titles. It should be determined by their show & performance for that year. Unfortunately, the DCI judges don't seem to look at it that way.

So who do you think should have beaten the top 3 this year? Which corps was not evaluated on their show and performance for this year?

If show and performance is not taken into consideration how is it that The Cadets came in 5th last year or the Blue Devils in 4th the year before? Cavies, Cadets, and BD don't just get a free ride because they have won before, they are just that freakin good.

[yorkhighmello]

Well i agree with the competitive inertia, but there are so many other factors that contribute to a corps' success. As mentioned in the responses, a huge factor is having a high return rate of members. Another is the competitive inertia, but you see with the competitive inertia, it draws many people to those corps that are finishing in the top 3 or 6 because they want to be a part of the best. I mean look at the top corps audition camps, they have multiple ones throughout the country, they get to choose from the best.

Now say you have staff that has been there forever, they have to have something to work with. I'll relate to sports as you did. Say that Bill Bellichek(Patriots) have coached his team for many years and then they go on to the superbowl but don't win. Now based on your philosophy, the team should have competitive inertia and the consistent staff. But what happens if they loose many of their best players (ie Tom Brady, Randy Moss, Dante STallworth, Teddy Bruschi, Mike Vrabel). Now what happens, there's no way that they can compete with the teams at the top.

My point is that it takes a combination of factors to win a championship and get a new top 3. The combination of competitive inertia, high returning member rate, consistent staff, masterful show design, large pool of auditionees to choose from, and many others.

Now, with my theory, i definately believe Carolina Crown is one of the front runners to break into the top 3 and win. Their shows have been genius and entertaining over the past couple years. The staff has been consistent for many years. The corps has finished with their highest placement ever, highest score ever, and then won all of the hot chops awards voted by the fans(competitive inertia). Now i can't speak for how the audition camp will be and return rate, but i sure hope to see Carolina Crown in the top 3 next year!!!!

[drumcat]

Sorry; I don't buy the staff argument. There are a lot of great staffs in DCI. It has more to do with the perception of said staff, particularly when it comes to the General Effect area. If you have a great name/legend on staff, you get the GE nod. This is one of the main reasons I'd like nothing more than to see all 8 categories flattened, all being equal. GE is too heavy, and I personally believe that said "inertia" is a result.

Money is a major factor, but not the top factor.

It's not about a draft, either. Talent shows up where it can most likely win. That will never, and I mean never go away. It's chicken-egg in a way, too. Once you have corps in every region of the country that have a CHANCE to win, the long flights will drop off, and kids will stay home, at their corps.

I think the problem was clearly illustrated in 2007, particularly with the Bluecoats. A corps with that much talent, and that much connection with the audience got absolutely punched in the face with GE. 7th in the two GE categories and 3rd in the 6 performance categories, and they end 7th. I don't believe they got cheated; they were judged fairly by the system in place. That's the problem; it's the system in place.

A corps like the 2007 Bluecoats exemplifies the parity problem. They were good enough on the field to be 2nd or 3rd in most performance categories, but for whatever reason, their staff did not connect enough dots for the GE judges. Therefore, the kids were "penalized" because all they can do is perform their show. There is an element for crowd connection, and that connection needs to be a small part of the score -- and the current definition of GE needs to be overhauled. "True" GE is a measure of how effective the corps was for the paying audience. "True" GE is a measure of how synergistic a corps is on a given night. "True" GE is taking the temperature of a corps. What we call GE now is nowhere close.

With the adjustments, we can empower the kids on the field to have a much greater impact in the final score, based on their performances. Once the numbers are decided by the kids on the field, parity will follow.

[madscout96]

Sorry; I don't buy the staff argument. There are a lot of great staffs in DCI. It has more to do with the perception of said staff, particularly when it comes to the General Effect area. If you have a great name/legend on staff, you get the GE nod. This is one of the main reasons I'd like nothing more than to see all 8 categories flattened, all being equal. GE is too heavy, and I personally believe that said "inertia" is a result.

Money is a major factor, but not the top factor.

It's not about a draft, either. Talent shows up where it can most likely win. That will never, and I mean never go away. It's chicken-egg in a way, too. Once you have corps in every region of the country that have a CHANCE to win, the long flights will drop off, and kids will stay home, at their corps.

I think the problem was clearly illustrated in 2007, particularly with the Bluecoats. A corps with that much talent, and that much connection with the audience got absolutely punched in the face with GE. 7th in the two GE categories and 3rd in the 6 performance categories, and they end 7th. I don't believe they got cheated; they were judged fairly by the system in place. That's the problem; it's the system in place.

A corps like the 2007 Bluecoats exemplifies the parity problem. They were good enough on the field to be 2nd or 3rd in most performance categories, but for whatever reason, their staff did not connect enough dots for the GE judges. Therefore, the kids were "penalized" because all they can do is perform their show. There is an element for crowd connection, and that connection needs to be a small part of the score -- and the current definition of GE needs to be overhauled. "True" GE is a measure of how effective the corps was for the paying audience. "True" GE is a measure of how synergistic a corps is on a given night. "True" GE is taking the temperature of a corps. What we call GE now is nowhere close.

With the adjustments, we can empower the kids on the field to have a much greater impact in the final score, based on their performances. Once the numbers are decided by the kids on the field, parity will follow.

Your point about "true" GE is good. But can "true" GE be quantified? It has to be quantified in order to put it on judges' sheets.