A: Competitive Inertia

[drumcat]

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.

Sure. You just have to redefine the GE sheets to go from the perceived completion of ideas to the perceived connection with the audience, synergistic energy, and emotive readability. Did they "part your hair" with good quality? Was there high demand and exceptional amplitude control? Was a corps able to maintain quality when at its emotional apex? Was the theme or context of a corps' show apparent, coherent, and well received? Did the corps create an environment of clear, effective ideas?

Sure -- this can be quantified on a sheet as well as any current GE curriculum. Let's codify it in such a way that it means what people think it means...

[84BDsop]

I think the staff and management stability plays a huge role in creating an organization that top people WANT to perform with...winning or no.

As for high return rate...I would submit that that's not as big a factor for a corps like BD compared to a corps that rarely breaks into the top 12...a LOT of people choose to age out in one of the top dogs if possible. If you don;t stand much of a chance of getting the ring, you're more likely to stay where it feels comfortable instead of making the move to BD or Cadets.

[Bruckner8]

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.

Yes, during my OP, I made 2 points in succession, and how they build to form Competitive Inertia.

That is, the first part of my post basically stated [paraphrased now] "if you plan to win, you had better come in 2nd or 3rd first."

I went on to state [paraphrased] "...and if you want to stay in the top three, then you need to build Competitive Inertia, which will gave the judges a logical out for you. And in order to do that, you need consistent, competent leadership."

So I don't see the contradiction you're trying to call me on.

I appreciate your attempt to discredit my causation methodolgy, but I just love to find patterns! Now try this: If my methodlogy is to proven false, you'll have to find an example where consistent, competent leadership has NOT led to Competitive Inertia, or where Competitive Inertia can be clearly caused by some other (and ONLY those) factors.

Remember the CONTARPOSITIVE? Basically, it says "IF NOT Q THEN NOT P." If one can prove the CONTRAPOSITIVE, then one can conlude the original arguemnt to be true "IF P THEN Q." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition

I submit "If NOT Competitive Inertia THEN NOT consistent, competent leadership."

Looks pretty good [true] to me.

[drumcat]

Yes, during my OP, I made 2 points in succession, and how they build to form Competitive Inertia.

That is, the first part of my post basically stated [paraphrased now] "if you plan to win, you had better come in 2nd or 3rd first."

I went on to state [paraphrased] "...and if you want to stay in the top three, then you need to build Competitive Inertia, which will gave the judges a logical out for you. And in order to do that, you need consistent, competent leadership."

So I don't see the contradiction you're trying to call me on.

I appreciate your attempt to discredit my causation methodolgy, but I just love to find patterns! Now try this: If my methodlogy is to proven false, you'll have to find an example where consistent, competent leadership has NOT led to Competitive Inertia, or where Competitive Inertia can be clearly caused by some other (and ONLY those) factors.

Remember the CONTARPOSITIVE? Basically, it says "IF NOT Q THEN NOT P." If one can prove the CONTRAPOSITIVE, then one can conlude the original arguemnt to be true "IF P THEN Q." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition

I submit "If NOT Competitive Inertia THEN NOT consistent, competent leadership."

Looks pretty good [true] to me.

Wow... for all your logic-speak, you're confusing his point quite a bit. New and competent are entirely different ideas, but you're suggesting that competency is only gained by experience. Yet in your original statement, you discount the Bluecoats' director with one dismissive swipe at how he was a marching member. Mr. Fiedler was in the same situation that you're dismissing.

In other words, you're suggesting that years of service equal competence. (I take issue with the choice of "competence", so here after I'll call it competitive success...) So years served = competitive success. Yet we know that's not true. Hopkins won in his first year. Fiedler in his third. You're putting way, way too much emphasis in the corps director position. If you want to look at it carefully, you'll look at who has been successful as musical staff members... who's been there forever on the music staff... and who hasn't.

For example, Jim Casella can move over from SCV to Cavies and have instant street cred. Why? Because he and his team can take a very young, green drumline and get 19+ points out of them.

But even more, directors don't play a direct role in the corps' scores. It's the staff in critique. It's the staff doing the teaching. Most often, with plenty of exceptions, directors are more concerned with getting down the road, and making sure mundane things get done... like medical concerns, making sure there's toll money for drivers, meeting with housing hosts, and other boring #### like that. Do they play a role? Yes. But not a big one, usually. They usually don't have time.

[DutchCousin]

But even more, directors don't play a direct role in the corps' scores. It's the staff in critique. It's the staff doing the teaching. Most often, with plenty of exceptions, directors are more concerned with getting down the road, and making sure mundane things get done... like medical concerns, making sure there's toll money for drivers, meeting with housing hosts, and other boring #### like that. Do they play a role? Yes. But not a big one, usually. They usually don't have time.

I don't know for other corps, but we had a tour director for that kind of thing, not the corps director

[drumcat]

I don't know for other corps, but we had a tour director for that kind of thing, not the corps director

So as a former TD, I can tell you that it's basically a job that you do to prevent stupid stuff from getting to your director... but they still deal with the important stuff directly. It's different for each corps, but the point is that corps directors are not always the most influential staff member when it comes to competitive activities.

[Bruckner8]

Yet in your original statement, you discount the Bluecoats' director with one dismissive swipe at how he was a marching member.

I was actually pumping him up! Not sure how you got the reverse impression, but oh well. I was pointing out that Blooo is on this threshold, and that he's a big reason, by saying that he has 5 yrs directorship + drum major + marching member! That part of the OP was answering the question "who's most likely to win next" by pointing out the consistent leadership in Crown, Bloo and Glassmen.

I guess I should keep my posts shorter.

[DutchCousin]

So as a former TD, I can tell you that it's basically a job that you do to prevent stupid stuff from getting to your director... but they still deal with the important stuff directly. It's different for each corps, but the point is that corps directors are not always the most influential staff member when it comes to competitive activities.

Agreed, teaching staff would be more of an influence than admin staff.

[L1STEN2311]

i vote that a good show design and performance helps too...

[bluehull]

An endless supply of well trained and talented corpmembers transfering from lower top twelve corps keeps the free agency pipeline alive. The top four benefit from this directly. This is not to say that the staff of the top four corps are not first class also!