dsb2007 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 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. Then why do you even post the chart? It's completely irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
izzyd Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Then why do you even post the chart? It's completely irrelevant. Because I was trying to show that both groups have been successful WITHIN THEIR OWN DIVISIONS. Both groups are very good organizations, with great kids, great staffs, great adults who care about the activity and the kids, and offer great experiences for the kids. Last time I checked, this was the most important thing. What's irrelevant is all our opinions. What started out as a simple audition question turned into "who's better" forum. All anyone wants to do is cause trouble on here cause nobody has anything better to do. This is why I don't like to post on here much, so that I don't get caught up in the stupidity. I made that mistake today though. Get over yourselves...........for the sake of the kids....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsb2007 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Because I was trying to show that both groups have been successful WITHIN THEIR OWN DIVISIONS. Both groups are very good organizations, with great kids, great staffs, great adults who care about the activity and the kids, and offer great experiences for the kids. Last time I checked, this was the most important thing.What's irrelevant is all our opinions. What started out as a simple audition question turned into "who's better" forum. All anyone wants to do is cause trouble on here cause nobody has anything better to do. This is why I don't like to post on here much, so that I don't get caught up in the stupidity. I made that mistake today though. Get over yourselves...........for the sake of the kids....... Ok. You have a good point. Point taken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT-Horn Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 I like the Raiders but I'm not sure I would call an 84.400 to a 95.700 "alot of competition". Raiders Moved upfrom Division 3 to Division 2 this past Season ( Now Open Class ). They have 3 DCI Medals since 2000 including a World Championship in 2005 in Division 3. Surf had a very strong season after bolstering thier Staff last year and should do great again this coming season after this year's success. Both of these corps have been around for over 15 years in a very competitive State with many corps to choose from. Anytime you have 2 successful corps looking to recruit within a few hours of each other, it's going to be competitive. Both of these corps will have good winter camps and both of these corps will put out great shows next season. Isn't that what competition is all about????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT-Horn Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 A quick visit to corpsreps.com shows the tale of the tape:Finals Scores Surf 1994 - 74.2 1995 - 83.2 1996 - 84.1 1997 - 81.3 1998 - 89.5 1999 - 88.7 2000 - 71.4 (Div. 1 21st place) 2001 - 89.85 2002 - 87.75 2003 - 89.9 2004 - 85.875 2005 - 89.75 2006 - 86.175 2007 - 95.70 Raiders 1994 - 74.4 1995 - 77.3 1996 - 79.0 1997 - 79.5 1998 - 81.5 1999 - 84.4 2000 - 80.75 (Div. 3 12th place) 2001 - 88.5 2002 - 78.3 2003 - 81.5 2004 - 79.65 2005 - 88.8 (Div. 3 Champion) 2006 - 80.5 2007 - 84.4 Thus, in response to your post and relative to the "friendly rivalry," it seems that The Surf "got good" for a while now. You missed the notation of Silver Medal in 2001 and the Bronze in 2007 for the Raiders, While the Surf Captured thier first Medal Last Season. Either way, both Programs have been very successful over the years and it's a very un-educated attempt to try to compare the 2 with just scores. There are many factors concerning placements, division size over the years and scoring along with the way DCI moved corps up a before the current placement system. If you have a few minutes, go www.fromthepressbox.com and look at the recaps, scores and size of Division 2 and 3 over the past 10 -12 years. Again, both of these corps have managed to survive a long time in DCI and they both should be very proud of the work they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT-Horn Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 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. Wow. I go out of town for a week and I have to catch up with all the D2/3 chat. The one thing I see from the post here is that alot of people fail to recognize that the Raiders marched 79 members in 2007, (which they must have if it is posted correctly) and they could have stayed in Division 3 and maybe chased another medal. Instead, they decided to march in Division 2 where they probably new they would have a rough summer, but figured it was a good way to grow the corps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marimbaman89 Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 You missed the notation of Silver Medal in 2001 and the Bronze in 2007 for the Raiders We got the bronze in 2006. I think you probably meant that anyway because you recognized that we went Div II this year instead of trying for another Div III medal. But thank you for recognizing our accomplishments anyway :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsb2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 You missed the notation of Silver Medal in 2001 and the Bronze in 2007 for the Raiders, While the Surf Captured thier first Medal Last Season. Either way, both Programs have been very successful over the years and it's a very un-educated attempt to try to compare the 2 with just scores. There are many factors concerning placements, division size over the years and scoring along with the way DCI moved corps up a before the current placement system. If you have a few minutes, go www.fromthepressbox.com and look at the recaps, scores and size of Division 2 and 3 over the past 10 -12 years. Again, both of these corps have managed to survive a long time in DCI and they both should be very proud of the work they do. Again, I don't think "placement" is as valid of a comparison as "scores" when you consider the fact that Division II and III have always been on the same sheets. Sure, it makes Raiders look more comparable to Surf to look at how they placed in Division III compared to Surf in Division II but it's not realistic. Especially when there has been this thing called "Grand Finals" that has been used for years now where both Division II and III corps go head to head and Raiders have never even been in the ball park. BUT...08 could be a different story. I'm not trying to dog the Raiders. I'm just trying to be realistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
izzyd Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Again, I don't think "placement" is as valid of a comparison as "scores" when you consider the fact that Division II and III have always been on the same sheets. Sure, it makes Raiders look more comparable to Surf to look at how they placed in Division III compared to Surf in Division II but it's not realistic. Especially when there has been this thing called "Grand Finals" that has been used for years now where both Division II and III corps go head to head and Raiders have never even been in the ball park. BUT...08 could be a different story. I'm not trying to dog the Raiders. I'm just trying to be realistic. Can we have this topic closed due to the clear stupidity of it? It's oblviously going nowhere and has gone far away from it's original point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsb2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Can we have this topic closed due to the clear stupidity of it? It's oblviously going nowhere and has gone far away from it's original point. Such is the nature of DCP. Try to start an informative thread about two corps and it will always turn into a competition. Should we be surprised though? It is a competitive activity. I don't think it needs to be closed. Nothing bad has been posted. 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.