Blackstar Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) Scores are one of the last thing you should worry about when it comes to picking a corps. Both of these orginazations have much to offer. Both Directors are passionate about the corps and improving the activity. The kids get fed and have fun. I said before years ago I thought Raiders was this fly-by-night group until I got to know them more. Now They have always been are one of the classiest corps around bar none. While I my son didn't march I'm praying my daughter will in the next couple of years. There's only 2 corps I'll let her march in....Raiders or Surf. Good luck to all those that try out this year and hope to see you on the field Edited October 3, 2007 by Blackstar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsb2007 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Scores are one of the last thing you should worry about when it comes to picking a corps. Both of these orginazations have much to offer. Both Directors are passionate about the corps and improving the activity. The kids get fed and have fun. I said before years ago I thought Raiders was this fly-by-night group until I got to know them more. Now They have always been are one of the classiest corps around bar none. While I my son didn't march I'm praying my daughter will in the next couple of years. There's only 2 corps I'll let her march in....Raiders or Surf. Good luck to all those that try out this year and hope to see you on the field You make some good points. Though, I don't think it's always a bad thing to look at scores when picking a corps. It depends on what a kid wants and for every kid, drum corps goals are going to be different. For some, they may want competitive success and there is nothing wrong with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Apples and oranges (and maybe even a few bananas thrown in for good measure). Clever. B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsb2007 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Clever. B) Bananas? Well, they are from New Jersey. Get it? Never mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Bananas? Well, they are from New Jersey. Get it? Never mind. I found it "clever" and humorous given each corps relationship with the Bridgemen. The early Raiders administration was built upon the ashes of the Bridgemen, and Surf has now taken on a "Bridgemeneqsue" persona. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
izzyd Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Apples and oranges is a good way to describe it, since the Raiders (between 40 and 60 members from 2001 to 2006) have been in Div 3 till this past season, and the Jersey Surf have been in Div 2 with over 100 members each year. I know they are on the same sheets, but the larger Div 2 corps have usually been scored higher. As you can see, both the Raiders and Surf have been pretty competitive within their own divisions. Raider Placements in Div 3 since 2001: 2001 2nd 2002 7th 2003 6th 2004 6th 2005 1st 2006 3rd 2007 (Div 2) 6th Jersey Surf Placements in Div 2 since 2001: 2001 6th 2002 9th 2003 5th 2004 8th 2005 8th 2006 7th 2007 2nd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsvalues Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) Apples and oranges is a good way to describe it, since the Raiders (between 40 and 60 members from 2001 to 2006) have been in Div 3 till this past season, and the Jersey Surf have been in Div 2 with over 100 members each year. I know they are on the same sheets, but the larger Div 2 corps have usually been scored higher.As you can see, both the Raiders and Surf have been pretty competitive within their own divisions. Good spin-doctoring! Maybe the question should then be why is it that the Raiders have only been able to attract 40 to 60 members a year? I guess it's time for that tired old argument that Div 2 corps always got more points just for being bigger. I never agreed with that, and have witnessed many great performances from small but mighty Div 3 corps. I don't want to hijack this thread with that topic, however. With the new Open Class format, those things go away. Happily. Edited October 3, 2007 by corpsvalues Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
izzyd Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) Good spin-doctoring!Maybe the question should then be why is it that the Raiders have only been able to attract 40 to 60 members a year? I guess it's time for that tired old argument that Div 2 corps always got more points just for being bigger. I never agreed with that, and have witnessed many great performances from small but mighty Div 3 corps. I don't want to hijack this thread with that topic, however. With the new Open Class format, those things go away. Happily. During the last 8 years, the Raiders have grown in membership from the low 40s in 2001, to low 50s in 2004, to low 60s in 2006, to 79 which they were this past year. They have basically doubled in 8 years, which is pretty good. 2000 marked the beginning of a new admistrative staff for the Raiders, and they apparently have done a pretty good job judging by their steady growth. Surf experienced their equally impressive growth in the 90s, and have basically had the same leadership group in place since then. And yes, even though you'll find a few Div 3 corps making waves with the Div 2s in the past (late 90s Mandarins, 2003 Blue Stars as some examples, 2007 Memphis Sound and Fever), you'll find that the top half of Grand Finals are usually packed with Div 2s. As much as I sometimes hate to admit it (myself being involved with many small groups thoughout the years) larger numbers give you more options design wise and gives you a wider dynamic range, both musically and visually. Ask any judge or designer. Most will tell you that it's harder to create effect with smaller numbers, and it is also harder to design for smaller numbers. This is taking nothing away from any of these two groups, as they have both more than held their own in their respective divisions. Edited October 3, 2007 by izzyd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsb2007 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) Apples and oranges is a good way to describe it, since the Raiders (between 40 and 60 members from 2001 to 2006) have been in Div 3 till this past season, and the Jersey Surf have been in Div 2 with over 100 members each year. I know they are on the same sheets, but the larger Div 2 corps have usually been scored higher.As you can see, both the Raiders and Surf have been pretty competitive within their own divisions. Raider Placements in Div 3 since 2001: 2001 2nd 2002 7th 2003 6th 2004 6th 2005 1st 2006 3rd 2007 (Div 2) 6th Jersey Surf Placements in Div 2 since 2001: 2001 6th 2002 9th 2003 5th 2004 8th 2005 8th 2006 7th 2007 2nd Uh.....no. Sorry. <**> The earlier chart someone else posted with scores (since Division II and III have always been on the same sheets) is MUCH more of a valid comparison than this chart. You can't compare Division II placements with Division III placements. It's not even a fair comparison...TO RAIDERS I mean. And where do you get that judges score a full 135 Division II score any different than a smaller Division III score? And in case you haven't noticed (as I said on another thread recently)....there really hasn't been any separation between Division II and III....which is why they are consolidating them in one class. Grand Finals for Division II/III has been ONE COMPETITION between BOTH divisions for YEARS! The third division really doesn't and hasn't existed for the last number of years...again the reason why the two Divisions are now consolidated. You are grasping at straws! Edited October 3, 2007 by dsb2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
izzyd Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Uh.....no. Sorry. <**> The earlier chart someone else posted with scores (since Division II and III have always been on the same sheets) is MUCH more of a valid comparison than this chart. You can't compare Division II placements with Division III placements. It's not even a fair comparison...TO RAIDERS I mean. All I said is that both groups have been competitive within their respective divisions. This is not meant to compare the two head to head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.