Jump to content

A: Competitive Inertia


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, BoyWonder1911 said:

You are correct with this part, at least for 2019: 

"I guess the only way to debunk this theory now is if BAC can manage to win a title next year."

CI says nothing about your next statement, though: " And if not, then they can't medal."

Go back and read the very first post in this thread and you'll see what the theory of CI actually is. Its not describing a conspiracy, its describing a pattern which has continued to hold over 11 championships since it was first posited, so it seems to be holding up pretty well.

 

20 minutes ago, BoyWonder1911 said:

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading the comments makes me wonder... Are we saying that Competitive Inertia is... bad?  Maybe even morally wrong?

I don't think so.

Yes, it may be frustrating at times that our particular corps may not medal or win, but I don't see much evidence for conspiracy.  If I'm on the board of directors for BD, I'm excited and proud of all the decades of hard work and investment paying off year after year.  We've accomplished a consistent, self-sustaining organization that attracts talented performers and instructional staff that (let's be honest) pushes the rest of the activity to aspire to be better. 

The only way you artificially make things more "fair" is by instituting a draft for players and staff to satisfy our ill-conceived desire for equality amongst the corps.  But... how would that be "fair" for BD and their half century of blood, sweat and tears to get to where they are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The author of this theory theorizes that human nature has precluded judges from giving a seemingly breaking-through corps, the benefit of the doubt. And that because of this, they have not and may never choose a corps to win unless that corps has at least taken 2nd or 3rd in the recent past.

It explicitly describes a situation where CI is because of judges. 

Written in 2007, we've seen since 2008, Crown with a 4th, 2nd, 4th, 4th, 2nd, then 1st. Then 5th, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th.

We've also seen Bluecoats with 6,6,3,7,6,5,2,3,1.

I will conclude that a corps needs to make Finals before they can win. Otherwise the judges are biased against them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BoyWonder1911 said:

I would think that Cavs beating Bluecoats last year at Finals, a year after winning, would say something against it

 

 

 

 No. Its imperative to actually understand what his Theory is, before attempting to poo poo it. Over the last decade, more than a few posters have attempted to discredit his theory, but it was frustrating no doubt to both him and others because  either 1) they did not take the time to read what his Theory actually states and/ or 2) they do not fully understand his Theory Principle to begin with.

 As such, the " Cavs beating Bluecoats lsat year at Finals ", is irrelevant to his Theory of Competitive Inertia, and neither invalidates it, nor advances it, BoyWonder1911.  I'm guessing here, you do not understand yet the tenets of his Theory, and this more than lkely explains your reply here.

Edited by BRASSO
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BRASSO said:

 No. Its imperative to actually understand what his Theory is, before attempting to poo poo it. Over the last decade, more than a few posters have attempted to discredit his theory, but it was frustrating no doubt to both him and others because  either 1) they did not take the time to read what his Theory actually states and/ or 2) they do not fully understand his Theory Principle to begin with.

 As such, the " Cavs beating Bluecoats lasat year at Finals ", is irrelevant to his Theory of Competitive Inertia, and neither invalidates it, nor advances it, BoyWonder1911.  I'm guessing here, you do not understand yet the tenets of his Theory, and this explains your reply here.

Yes I get it now, as per my most recent replies to this thread.

I maintain that a.corps must make finals before they are allowed to win 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, BoyWonder1911 said:

The author of this theory theorizes that human nature has precluded judges from giving a seemingly breaking-through corps, the benefit of the doubt. And that because of this, they have not and may never choose a corps to win unless that corps has at least taken 2nd or 3rd in the recent past.

It explicitly describes a situation where CI is because of judges. 

Written in 2007, we've seen since 2008, Crown with a 4th, 2nd, 4th, 4th, 2nd, then 1st. Then 5th, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th.

We've also seen Bluecoats with 6,6,3,7,6,5,2,3,1.

I will conclude that a corps needs to make Finals before they can win. Otherwise the judges are biased against them.

 

And, interestingly enough, Bruckner8 opined (predicted?) that there were 3 corps that had the momentum to achieve a top 3 and go on to win.

One was Carolina Crown, and the second was the Bluecoats.  The third was Glassmen, but that never eventuated.

I wonder, if there is a corollary out there along the lines of "if I corps places outside the top 3 for X years, they cannot achieve 1st without finishing 2nd or 3rd again".

This corollary would preclude corps such as Phantom, or Scouts finishing 1st again without first finishing 2nd or 3rd. 

And this corollary is in keeping with the tenets of the original Theory, but narrows it a bit.

Edited by PamahoNow
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BoyWonder1911 said:

Yes I get it now, as per my most recent replies to this thread.

I maintain that a.corps must make finals before they are allowed to win 

This theory is so much broader to be uncontroversial. 

As would be the the theory that a corps must first make semi-finals before they are allowed to win.

Or even more generally, a corps must compete at least one year before they are allowed to win.

What Bruckner8s contention is very narrow, but he provides reasons why it is so.  And it has proven controversial as the length of this topic indicates.

But it has been proven correct (to this point) .  It explained all of the past history and made a prediction about the future, and we can all tell what would

disprove it.  Boston winning next year would do that, or any one of several other corps.

Your contention would raise no eyebrows, and indeed, my two suggestions above would not as well, and none of them are anything other than trivial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ranintothedoor said:

 

The only way you artificially make things more "fair" is by instituting a draft for players and staff to satisfy our ill-conceived desire for equality amongst the corps.  But... how would that be "fair" for BD and their half century of blood, sweat and tears to get to where they are?

 No... instituting a " draft " for marchers and staff is not only impractical, its probably illegal. That said, there is nothing illegal about Transfer Rules, that ALL sports teams/ sport league everywhere on Earth have.. Long time DCP'ers know my position on this. it goes nowhere. 'Has little to no support for it currently, so I'm ok with this, and ok with BD likely winning 42% of the future DCI Titles for the next 40  years with this lack of a reasonable and rational Transfer Policy implementation by DCI between member Corps.

Edited by BRASSO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2018 at 12:04 PM, BRASSO said:

 No... instituting a " draft " for marchers and staff is not only impractical, its probably illegal. That said, there is nothing illegal about Transfer Rules, that ALL sports teams/ sport league everywhere on Earth have.. Long time DCP'ers know my position on this. it goes nowhere. 'Has little to no support for it currently, so I'm ok with this, and ok with BD likely winning 42% of the future DCI Titles for the next 40  years with this lack of a reasonable and rational Transfer Policy implementation by DCI between member Corps.

I agree... I wasn't actually proposing it should happen... I was just making the point that there's no need to make DCI "more fair".  You and I are on the same page.  :-)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay... this whole thing has been bugging me... please let me know if I have this straight...

Corps without championships (ie, Crown and Bluecoats) that win their first championship will have had to have made significant leaps in placement in the years leading up to their win, including a 2nd/3rd place finish the year prior to their 1st place finish.

Wouldn't this be the same as saying that if there was a corps that was improving rapidly over a 2-3 year period, it would attract money and talent and a sense of excitement that would push the design team to create that "special show" that will win? I don't really seeing this as having anything to do with judges, but more the natural energy that builds around an organization when it finds itself having sudden, compounding success.  

And what's the point of the theory, anyway?... developing a future champion by having clear organizational goals that comport with the theory's predictions? Training judges on how to avoid accidentally rooting for those up and coming corps? 

Theories don't really have ulterior motives, though... I get that.  

This whole conversation hurts my head.  :laughing:

  • Like 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...