A: Competitive Inertia

[Peel Paint]

in response to my earlier post:

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.

I agree that a draft wouldn't work. Members would indeed choose not to march rather than submit to a draft system. What I was saying is that the NFL figured out a way to bring more parity to their sport because they saw that it was good for business, and they're absolutely right. It is not healthy to have the playoffs and the champion and runners up to basically be predictable, within the context of moving up or down in the standings just a few spots in consecutive years and for the same top three teams to dominate for almost 20 years. In the NFL, if the 8th seed comes in and plays a really great game, they have a real chance to upset the top seed. This doesn't happen in DCI, where the idea that finals is one-performance-takes-all gets lip service but is more hooey than reality. Even if all else is equal in terms of which corps are at the shows, raise your hand if you believe that corps get fairly rewarded and punished in score for dramatically stronger or weaker performances on the field in any two consecutive nights. Bueller? Anyone? (I'm suggesting corps don't often get rewarded or punished this way, particularly in GE, because judges are often reluctant to disregard previous scores and the scoring trends that have built up over the season.)

I agree in general with what drumcat is saying in this thread: reworking the sheets to bring GE in line with public perception would help a lot to encourage parity.

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.

I'm not griping about the finish of this year's corps in DCI, because I agree it was judged consistently within DCI's system. But the corps that placed 4th-7th in Pasadena connected much better with the audience in Pasadena than the corps in 2nd and 3rd, and if the GE judging had reflected that, the finish of the top 7 this year would have been different.

Edited November 28, 2007 by Peel Paint

[MikeD]

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...

General Effect does include many of the things you note...and a lot more. The problem I see again and again here in DCP is that people want GE to be ONLY the "crowd appeal", which IMO would be a terrible way to go.

GE is also not just a 'designer caption'. It is also the performance of the members and how they create the moods and feelings of the written show. How much variety is there in the types of emotions being generated is also part of GE. A "Johnny One-note" type of show will suffer over a show that exhibits a wide variety.

I don't see demand as being part of GE to any extent...that belongs in the performance captions. Something may be difficult yet generate little in the way of effect.

[MikeD]

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."

If you mean that "competitive inertia" is a good thing, I agree in general. What it provides to a corps is the ability to attract the best to their auditions. It's not giving judges an "out", which implies something not on the up-and-up to me; it means that those corps tend to attract the best...hence they tend to place the highest, year in and year out.

[Peel Paint]

I appreciate your attempt to discredit my causation methodolgy, but I just love to find patterns!

That's fine, and loosely speaking, I agree with many of the patterns you've found, but just remember that patterns are only a first step and aren't enough in science to establish causation. I'm not trying to discredit your model as much as caution you about thinking you've defined the drum corps universe in a predictable way. Backtesting often fails to predict the future. Back in the day when BD and SCV dominated, you could have backtested and found patterns (say both had key instructors who graduated from UCLA) that might not have predicted the 1983 emergence of Cadets. And then when those three corps clogged the top, would backtesting have predicted the success of Cavaliers and relative fall from grace of SCV?

Clearly, Messrs. Gibbs, Hopkins, and Fiedler have done many things extremely well, and their skill in management has played key roles in the consistent success of their corps. No question.

[Rusty]

From Bill Cook's recollections on Star's drum corps years:

I would like to digress a moment and talk about what it takes to win a championship. First, a corps must have experience, a work ethic that goes beyond saying "I worked hard" because working hard on the wrong things will eventually ruin a corps hope for success.

I believe that staffs win championships. A corps director must instinctively know where to place the emphasis and the staff must have a music and drill book that is sufficiently difficult. A championship book must appear to be seamless--it must flow and the members must be sufficiently accomplished to make their actions appear easy. If the spectators perceive the work as being easy but executed to perfection, then the staff has done its job and the corps has learned their lessons well. Physical conditioning also is an integral part of the success formula--every member must be able to finish. (emphasis added)

I think an argument can be made that the real rock stars of the activity are staff members. While various soloists from a number of corps really stand out, the drum corps community at large rarely knows them by name (Tim Jackson being a recent notable exception). But everybody has heard of Scott Johnson, Wayne Downey, Paul Rennick and Richard Saucedo. Yes, Saucedo is an arranger and not a staffer per se, but I think that still underscores the importance of giving the members the right book and proper instruction.

I think this also holds true for activities beyond drum corps. I know of one high school that, after years of embarrassment on the gridiron, finally has a pretty decent varsity football team. While they may well have a bigger tax base and therefore better funding for the teams, the main thing that has changed is the coaching staff. They're still drawing from the same talent base. They're just utilizing it better through a competent coach.

[drumcat]

General Effect does include many of the things you note...and a lot more. The problem I see again and again here in DCP is that people want GE to be ONLY the "crowd appeal", which IMO would be a terrible way to go.

GE is also not just a 'designer caption'. It is also the performance of the members and how they create the moods and feelings of the written show. How much variety is there in the types of emotions being generated is also part of GE. A "Johnny One-note" type of show will suffer over a show that exhibits a wide variety.

I don't see demand as being part of GE to any extent...that belongs in the performance captions. Something may be difficult yet generate little in the way of effect.

I would have to disagree with you on this. I'm certainly not advocating an applause meter, but in earlier posts, we've all agreed here (as much as is possible) that there is indeed a disconnect between the public perception of GE, and how it is judged. I think you're oversimplifying my statement -- you'll notice that all of my fragments were two-parted statements of excellence with audience appeal. I envisage a balance, and we do not have such a balance now. The dogma is to reward the connection between what the staff says they're going to do (to a judge), and doing it. That process is not respecting the regular audience member insofar as they usually get one viewing. If the audience doesn't get it on the first read, judges included, that's a problem.

I'm not here to rehash why, but just to say that this is what I believe will combat the said "inertia" and encourage parity.

[contrajedi8]

I think the same arguement could be made, but maybe to a lesser extent with corps trying to break into finals. I think it takes competitive inertia for a corps to do that. There are a few corps (SW, Cap Reg, Blue Stars, etc...) that have been on the cusp for a few years now and are trying to get that push. I feel that if a corps want to land in that 11-12 place spot, they need to perfrom like a 8-9 place corps. They don't get the benefit of the doubt.

Also, great topic. It's nice to see something on here not turn into a pissing contest.

[Bruckner8]

That's fine, and loosely speaking, I agree with many of the patterns you've found, but just remember that patterns are only a first step and aren't enough in science to establish causation. I'm not trying to discredit your model as much as caution you about thinking you've defined the drum corps universe in a predictable way. Backtesting often fails to predict the future. Back in the day when BD and SCV dominated, you could have backtested and found patterns (say both had key instructors who graduated from UCLA) that might not have predicted the 1983 emergence of Cadets. And then when those three corps clogged the top, would backtesting have predicted the success of Cavaliers and relative fall from grace of SCV?

Clearly, Messrs. Gibbs, Hopkins, and Fiedler have done many things extremely well, and their skill in management has played key roles in the consistent success of their corps. No question.

I know exactly what you're saying about causation and backtesting. However, I was also clear when I claimed that I did NOT backtest on Crossmen, Blue Knights and Boston...but I had a hunch. I was hoping other people would start calling me on it, by coming up the tests themselves since I don't have that much time, like "Yeah, well Boston's had the same [whatever leadership position] for th elast 30 yrs" or something like that.

Also, speaking from personal experience, SCV did have a long tenured and competent leader in Gail Royer during the time they were trading championships with BD. I'm not sure about the history of Cavies, and their runup to their first championship, but if I backtested it, I'm sure I'd find that it holds up, even if it's in someone behind the scenes, like a music or designer person.

Although the OP was very long, I wanted it to be much longer by pointing out that my theory may hold up ever for certain caption heads, and are successful even when they switch corps. These individuals have been around a long time, with clear demonstrations of success. They also have the judges' ears in very important ways; that is, they maximize their use of critique and other social situations. They are master manipulators, and that's OK.

Thus the main thrust of my entire point is that judges give the successful corps "breaks" when all other things are deemed "equal." (b/c The Inertia has built up) Then I tried to point out what leads to that success, in a tangible, even scientific way. (Observe>Hypothesis>Test>Observe) I still feel very good about my Hypothesis, and you've done nothing to debunk it other than say "be careful, might not always work."

I'll say it again, in another way: I have no problem with judges using Competitive Inertia in their decision making. If two corps are deemed "close enough" to be equal, then may as well give it to the corps that's demonstrated a history of achievement. I say it's human nature anyway.

How else is a judge supposed to differentiate 0.1 or 0.05 points between corps? It's practically impossible, yet we expect them to be superhuman for a few hundred bucks. For example, say we all looked at a subcaption, read the sheets, and agreed that 3 corps achieved exactly what the sheets say. Then we have to remember that the activity demands rank (No more ties!) What should we do? SOMEHOW we must differentiate them. I don't think it's even conscious.

Lower corps need to be more proactive about achieving Competitive Inertia so that they too can get the benefit of the doubt in some way. It's human nature to use ALL information to one's advantage (even extraneous info) no matter how hard we try to make the sheets objective.

I'm just trying to acknowledge it, call it, describe it, embrace it, and challenge lower corps to use it to their advantage.

[Richard]

Get ready, this is a long one…

This is a very interesting topic and I have enjoyed reading different perspectives and perceptions on the competitive aspect of DCI. For the record, here are my thoughts.

Championship caliber corps require certain ingredients and it is almost impossible to win without any of them. My perceived list is as follows:

- Design

- Member talent (read: talented rookies + member retention)

- Quality Instruction

I believe these three elements are equally important and it is very difficult to win a championship without them. I’ll try to cite both a championship caliber example and a non-championship caliber example from 2007 to back up my point.

Design: Cavaliers music design was not on par with their visual program. Result: They finished out of the top 2 for the first time since 1999. The Cadets had a killer design that beat the audience and judges over the head with effect for 11 ½ minutes. Result: 2nd place finish despite scoring relatively low in many performance captions.

Member talent: I like to break this down into two categories: talented rookies and lots of vets. Many posters on DCP discussed at length the youth and inexperience of The Cadets’ colorguard and how that was being reflected in their scores up through finals. Result: 4th place colorguard. At the same time, The Cadets’ hornline was lauded by many for the crazy notes they played at even crazier volumes. I don’t believe the brass staff changed that much between 06 and 07, so I am attributing the sudden strength of that hornline to an influx of talented rookies, higher vet retention than from 05 to 06 (I’ve heard people say that “everybody left” after 05), and the growth in ability of returning members. Result: 2nd place brassline (by .1) that many claim to be the loudest in recent memory.

Quality Instruction: This is tough to come up with examples of without actually being in the corps. At the same time, this is why a lot of the top corps remain on top for so long. These people know how to get the most out of their students and do it year in year out. This is also why corps like Crown and Bluecoats appear to be poised for a run. Just look at Crown’s percussion scores prior to the addition of Lee Beddis and crew; the were perennial 12th place finishers. In 2007 – 5th place. Now some of that can be attributed to design and member talent, but it is no coincidence that a 7 place jump happened the same year as a new percussion staff.

To work my way back to the original topic of competitive inertia, I would attribute the perennial success of the “top 6” to the three points I listed above far above competitive inertia. While I’m sure it does exist to some extent, I don’t think it plays as big of a role in the yearly placement of corps as this thread has indicated. The OP was on to something with a consistent staff that begetting competitive inertia however. It runs much deeper than simple consistency, obviously. The top corps consistent leadership/staff understand how to design the most effective shows and get the most out of their members.

Now I will explain why the ‘top 6’ are the ‘top 6’ year after year using my three ingredients for a championship rather than competitive inertia…

Design: Two words – The Cavaliers. That design team knows how to design a show plain and simple. This makes them consistently great and hard to beat.

Member Talent: I saw a video online of Scott Johnson saying that they have about 4-5 rookies in the snare line every year. Granted, BD isn’t exactly churning out drum titles lately but they almost always have a top 3 drumline with a crazy book. That’s because those 4-5 rookies are the most talented snare drummers that can afford to march there. I can’t imagine there are many people who say “well I got cut here so I’ll just go march at BD.” Unfortunately, that’s how many corps have fill out their ranks – with the cast-offs of the top corps. Someone mentioned earlier that corps like Cadets, BD and Cavies get to pick and choose from the best rookies every year; this gives them a distinct advantage. The other part of the member talent piece is member retention. I remember in 2006 people reporting Cavaliers had something like 96 returning vets during that season. When you combine that many people who know how to play the drum corps game with their killer design you get a championship. In contrast, the aforementioned 06 Cadets had poor member retention coupled with dubious design and came in 5th.

Quality Instruction: Just re-read the last sentence of the previous paragraph. The 2006 Cadets had a lackluster program with poor member retention and still finished 5th. That is #### good. That is what a good staff does for you. That’s why 5th place is awful for The Cadets, 4th place is a rare occurrence for BD and 3rd place is a huge disappointment for The Cavaliers. Those staffs know how to take not as much and make it great.

On a different level, look at the top Open Class corps every years. Many of them take in people with little marching experience or no brass experience and teach them how to be great and win championships with those members. A great staff that knows how to get the most out of members will yield results year in and year out.

I apologize that I’ve written so much especially because I’m sure many of you are reading this thinking “no ####.” My overriding point is that the top corps are there for reasons much larger than competitive inertia. What I’ve outlined here is what I believe to be a formula for success in DCI regardless of competitive inertia. The largest stumbling block for the second-tier corps is member talent. The best players usually want to go to the best corps. This gives the top corps an edge in recruiting talented rookies. Further, some of the most talented members of a second-tier corps will often say “Well Corps X has been good to me, but I want to perform on the next level” and then go to Cadets or BD or Cavaliers.

I’m not saying that corps like Bluecoats and Crown don’t have quality design or quality staff because they obviously do, but you can only do what the talent level of your membership allows you. If you program something above their heads it will not be clean enough to win, and the best instructors can only do so much with mediocre talent (I am NOT saying that Crown and Bluecoats have mediocre talent btw). I do see these two corps working their way up though. In the past 3+ years they have been getting consistently better through quality design/instruction and better member retention. Now they’ve both reached the level where many perceive them to be an ultimate destination in drum corps. I know I would love to be in either of those hornlines as much as I would to be in BD, Cadets, etc and I think that perception is starting to become widespread.

To wrap this tremendous post up, I cannot speak definitively on anything I’ve written here. I’ve never marched a ‘top 6’ corps and I have no idea how they do what they do every year. This is just what I’ve observed over the past 6-7 years of my interest/participation in the activity. In other words, I could be way wrong, so correct me if you know better. Also, I do not mean to discredit the notion of competitive inertia, because I’m sure it factors into the equation. But speaking strictly from an observer’s viewpoint, I would put more value in the three things I mentioned in this post much more so than in competitive inertia.

Actually, after reading Bruckner8's most recent post, it appears as though what I've done is explain the reasons behing competitive inertia...oh well, hopefully it was a good read for some of you at the very least.

[MikeD]

I would have to disagree with you on this. I'm certainly not advocating an applause meter, but in earlier posts, we've all agreed here (as much as is possible) that there is indeed a disconnect between the public perception of GE, and how it is judged. I think you're oversimplifying my statement -- you'll notice that all of my fragments were two-parted statements of excellence with audience appeal. I envisage a balance, and we do not have such a balance now.

Which is where we disagree. I think there is a balance in the sheets. How each judge weights the various elements of the subcaptions will vary a bit from judge to judge as each individual person has some level of "uniqueness" in how he/she evaluates a program. GE is and has always been subjecive.

The dogma is to reward the connection between what the staff says they're going to do (to a judge), and doing it. That process is not respecting the regular audience member insofar as they usually get one viewing. If the audience doesn't get it on the first read, judges included, that's a problem.

I disagree, yet again. All shows are not designed to be "gotten" in their entirety with the first read. That would make for a pretty shallow set of shows, IMO. Some are designed that way, and some are not...just like any entertainment medium I can think of.

I'm not here to rehash why, but just to say that this is what I believe will combat the said "inertia" and encourage parity.

IMO the term "inertia" is a good thing, not a bad one. It means that the corps at the top have established themselves enough over time so that they will attract the best performers in general.

"Parity" is only good if it is bringing the lower levels up to the top, and not bringing the top levels down. Seems to be happening, actually. The performance quality...and show design quality...throughout the list of corps corps has increased.