Jump to content

2018 Rules proposals


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Terri Schehr said:

I don’t like the first four.  I’m good with the rest.  Jim likes the ordinal proposal.  Fine.  I’ll let him stay here anyway.  

 

They’re just throwing numbers around to give some a warm and fuzzy, but it doesn’t change placement. Ordinals saves everyone of the grief of learning you lost by five hundreds of a point. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jim Schehr said:

They’re just throwing numbers around to give some a warm and fuzzy, but it doesn’t change placement. Ordinals saves everyone of the grief of learning you lost by five hundreds of a point. 

So what section are those four extra people gonna be in? :laughing:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not convinced 15 corps is something I can tolerate. 12 is hard to endure. Cut it to ten and I’ll only miss two corps before I take my seat. 

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

1 minute ago, Terri Schehr said:

So what section are those four extra people gonna be in? :laughing:

Every corps could use more singers 

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

No scores in June? How about no shows in June. Most shows are not done in June anyway. Save your money don’t go to a June show. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I don't agree with the ordinal rule, I have no idea what people are talking about when they say it's a "baby diaper everybody gets a trophy" thing. It's still pretty clear there's a competition and who's better. But Hopkins proposed it so blindly hate on it anyway, right? :lle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stu said:

If you really believe that they should be free to do as they wish as their show dictates, the logical conclusion to your belief here is that no rules should exist at all concerning instrumentation and show design limitations.

you've finally figured Mike out eh?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Brass Lover said:

While I don't agree with the ordinal rule, I have no idea what people are talking about when they say it's a "baby diaper everybody gets a trophy" thing. It's still pretty clear there's a competition and who's better. But Hopkins proposed it so blindly hate on it anyway, right? :lle:

ordinals can, to a point, say, hie how far behind your guard is

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most important thing on here, obviously, is the ban on full-field amplification. It never should have been allowed in the first place, and its death is the most needed on-field development in the marching arts right now. The additional four members seems like a pretty good idea. If a corps can't afford to feed, transport, and equip an additional four members, then they probably shouldn't be on the road in the first place because it would take next to nothing to cause that corps to fold. Besides, the proposal doesn't require corps to march 154, just like the current rules don't require corps to march 150. I'm in favor of adding a second brass judge- it doesn't really make sense to have twice as many judges for percussion and more than twice as many members for brass- but making this change would only make sense if the additional MA judge was not added. Updating music analysis seems like a fine idea. Then there's the scoring proposals.

First of all, if you follow DCI because of the scores and competition and would stop going to shows if they weren't judged, this is the wrong sport for you. Even the members who the scores actually affect only care about them for maybe 10-15 minutes after they come out each night unless it's a regional or something big happened like Boston pulling ahead of Cadets or Colts pulling ahead of Troopers, and that's only for members of the affected corps. This activity is first and foremost about the performance, not the competition. Even members who switch corps do so more because they want to perform harder shows better than because they want to place higher.

With that out of the way, let's talk about the proposals. Let's start with the one that actually affects corps placements: Hopkins' ordinal rankings. Trying to read something written by George Hopkins is a distressingly similar experience to reading something written by Donald Trump, but from what I was able to get out of his non-standard formatted word salad with ellipse dressing, he wants total ranking to be based on the average of the caption's rankings, with GE scores used to break ties. The current system uses the sum of caption scores with no tiebreaking system. This would make a caption spread of .001 the same as a spread of 10, and make it much harder for a corps to make up for deficiencies in one caption. It would screw up how seeding for San Antonio works, and I have no idea how they'd get around that. This seems unnecessary. It's not the worst proposal imaginable, all personal thoughts of its author aside, but it doesn't seem good enough to be worth the costs.

On a related note, we have the proposal to not release scores until July 1. The full text of this proposal states that corps would still be judged and scored as usual, but the scores would only be given to the corps, and if I read it correctly, corps would only get their own scores and not anyone else's. That seems like a fine idea. In early-season shows where scores are all over the place anyway (in 2016, I marched in a show where we went up by two while everyone else at the show dropped dramatically on one night, a show where most corps had normal gains of around one to one and a half points, but we jumped by nine, and two nights later, after having a parade day, dropping by two while the other Open Class corps stayed around the same and the World Class corps got rained out) and there aren't full judging panels, they mean even less than they normally do. Personally, I feel like it might be best to combine these two- only give placements rather than scores until July 1, and then switch to normal scoring after that.

Then there's the biggest change: Increasing the size of finals. It does make some amount of sense with World Class growing and Open Class increasingly being World Class but cheaper, and my corps would be one of the most likely to benefit from the change. However, it does feel like it sort of cheapens the experience. Concerns about the length of the show are unfounded, given that there are plenty of shows with similar, if not significantly larger numbers of corps, like the regionals, but the sense of achievement for members if we make finals because it got bigger will be somewhat diminished. Ultimately, I'm inclined to favor it because giving more people a chance to perform another show and giving the audience the chance to see those shows one more time is a pretty big positive in the end, but I'm not going to be all that disappointed if it doesn't pass. If it does, people will still see it as an achievement to get top 12, just like people see it as an achievement to get top 15 today, or top six, or top three, even when those tiers don't get you into another show, and the initial weirdness it'll have for those of us who march both before and after the change will fade before long.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Stu said:

If you really believe that they should be free to do as they wish as their show dictates, the logical conclusion to your belief here is that no rules should exist at all concerning instrumentation and show design limitations.

Outside of safety issues, you are correct.

Edited by MikeD
  • Sad 1
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...