A: Competitive Inertia

[Bruckner8]

So even if the theory is proven wrong, it doesn't mean that the theory isn't correct? You'll forgive me if I have a chuckle at that.

So what if, say, Boston Crusaders put it all together next year and win the title. Will you then modify the theory to include corps that finish fifth or better? At what point do you realize it's simply easier to say "a corps is unlikely to win for the first time without spending a few years in contention, and in order to contend a corps needs to hire and retain a talented staff." Neither part of that statement is at all remarkable, and yet it encompasses everything said in the original post.

It seems to me the only truly unique claim made by CI is the rigid adherence to the significance of finishing third or better. If you're so willing to abandon that requirement in the event of a Crown championship, it only serves to illustrate the fact that you don't have actually have a theory. You have a collection of interesting observations, observations which already come with their fair share of exceptions. There's nothing scientific to this, there's no predictive power; Your first post in the thread basically just says 'this is what has happened so far', and you're most recent post basically says 'if something different happens then something different will have happened'.

The keys to success - that it won't happen all at once, you have to build a program up before it will win a championship, and that it's best to build a program with a consistent staff - are common to all competitive activities. Approach any drum corps fan, and they'll agree on each point without ever having heard of CI. This 'theory' is honestly just a pretentious way of stating what we all already know, and I'm boggled that it's caught on the way that it has as something legitimate.

Chuckling at (ie, dissing) the scientific process is fine, your prerogative. The Global Warming Alarmists do it all the time.

Back to reality...Note that Crown hasn't won yet. Note also that not one person on DCP...not even the most hardened Boston Crusader among us actually believes Boston can win next year.

When you say "build a program," note that you're tacitly agreeing with CI. Why should a program need to be built at all? Hasn't Boston built a program? Define "a program that is built." Why can't a new corps come out next year and win? At least in my original post I try to answer the question "why?" and I backed it up with some good observations.

The observations were:

1) Corps with long-standing consistent leadership tend to win, 15+ yrs! (Cavies w/Fiedler, Cadets with Hopkins, BD with Gibbs, SCV w/Royer) These are facts.

2) No corps (except Anaheim) has won w/o first placing 2nd or 3rd. This is a fact.

I then asked "which corps have consistent leadership TODAY?" ANS: Glassmen, Bloo and Crown. These are facts.

So, WTF is your actual problem? What is so hard to understand? I think I even said Crown is probably the most likely to be next. I even said that for the history to be undone, the corps (Crown 2009?) will have to be undeniably better in ALL captions. It will have to be a no-brainer. If there exists any caption in contention, it won't happen...wait til next year.

Finally, if Crown does win, the two observations will change to:

1) Corps with long-standing consistent leadership tend to win, 15+ yrs! (Cavies w/Fiedler, Cadets with Hopkins, BD with Gibbs, SCV w/Royer, CC with Smith) These are facts.

2) No corps (except Anaheim) has won w/o first placing 2nd,3rd or 4th. This is a fact.

Again, this is the scientific process. What is so hard to understand?

[nero14]

i really like your analysis...

I remember posting some statistic about the bluecoats getting 4th in 2006... it was something like the first time since 1981 that something happened... I can't remember exactly what.

[supersop]

i really like your analysis...

I remember posting some statistic about the bluecoats getting 4th in 2006... it was something like the first time since 1981 that something happened... I can't remember exactly what.

I think it as the first time a new face at the top had taken 4th and not pushed forward to a title in subsequent years. Usually it's 5th and then a fall (I THINK). In other words, and I'm not checking this because it's too late right now, I don't think a new face has skipped 5th and landed in 4th before Coats in 2006.

Garfield skipped up to 3rd in 1982 from 7th in 1981 which I don't think as ever been matched either. However, Star did go from 6th to 3rd in 89-90.

[nero14]

that was it- thanks for jogging my memory

[Tez]

So, WTF is your actual problem? What is so hard to understand? I think I even said Crown is probably the most likely to be next. I even said that for the history to be undone, the corps (Crown 2009?) will have to be undeniably better in ALL captions. It will have to be a no-brainer. If there exists any caption in contention, it won't happen...wait til next year.

Oh good, some healthy debate.....

You claim to base all of your theories on science.... so show me one... just one piece of scientific evidence that Crown must be far superior in all captions to win. I'm all for using past evidence to support theories, but when you make conclusions such as this, it is beyond ridiculous and is disrespectful to the judging community. I know you say that it's not the judges "fault," but that still gives them no credit for their best effort to score the corps correctly. You said it yourself that you think Cadets show is better this year, yet Crown is handily beating them in the GE rep. sub caption. Does this C.I. theory only apply to finals? Let's say hypothetically Crown does win.... but places like 5th in guard or percussion or something. If that happens, are they still undeniably better in ALL captions?

C.I. is a great theory for explaining why the same corps always win/finish high... but when you make the conclusion that a corps with less C.I. has to do much better than a corps with a lot of it to barely beat them, you are clearly implying that the judges are either consciously or sub-consciously affected by C.I. After all, only the judges directly affect the corps placements. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sure seems to me this is what you're saying. So if this is the case, then some corps in the past with less C.I. must have received a lower score than they deserved... right? Could you please tell me when this has happened?

I look forward to you responses.

[ShortAndFast]

Again, this is the scientific process. What is so hard to understand?

The problem with calling this "science" is not that your two observations are wrong - they're quite correct! The problem is that the theory you've constructed from them (a) makes very few non-obvious predictions, and (b) is unfalsifiable. One of the few predictions you've actually claimed for CI is "you must place in the Top 3 before you can win". Now, seemingly, even if Crown breaks that rule this year, you wouldn't see it as evidence against CI.

Here's my counter-theory: there is no such thing as "competitive inertia". Judges call every show as they see it. There is no special preference given to former Champions or former Top 3 corps. The Blue Devils, Cavaliers and Cadets earn their consistently high scores with their consistently excellent shows.

There's plenty of evidence for this contrary point of view in the scoring of recent years. When another group displays a similar level of excellence to the "big 3", they get similar scores (Crown 09, Bluecoats 07 for a while). When the "big 3" display less excellence, they get lower scores (BD 05, Cadets 06 & 08, maybe Cavaliers 09).

[supersop]

Oh good, some healthy debate.....

You claim to base all of your theories on science.... so show me one... just one piece of scientific evidence that Crown must be far superior in all captions to win. I'm all for using past evidence to support theories, but when you make conclusions such as this, it is beyond ridiculous and is disrespectful to the judging community. I know you say that it's not the judges "fault," but that still gives them no credit for their best effort to score the corps correctly.

Ok I have to jump in on this one. Science, NO. Popular opinion, Possibly. My Opinion, YES!

1979 Phantom 2nd place

1989 Phantom 2nd place

1990 Star 3rd Place

1990 and 1991 Cavies 2nd place

Popular Opinion says these corps should have won their first titles on said years.

Notice I mention 2 corps on the same year I won with Cadets. Nope no bias. Any of us could have won.

Were those corps HEAD AND SHOULDERS and UNQUESTIONABLY better than the corps that won, who just happened to already have a title under their belt ........ IMO, no. Although 79 and 89 Phantom were heart breakers. In almost every case I stated, the drumcorps community was up in arms and NOT HAPPY with the outcomes. 1990 Star was the darling that year and everyone was happy for them that they busted into the top 3 even though their hornline was the cats ###.

If the judging didn't have an X factor like CI with zero bias and judging the shows in a vacuum .. I think DCI history would a lot different. Because history is the way it is ... I feel fortunate and lucky regardless of the blood I shed to reach my goals.

[Matt_S]

Again, this is the scientific process. What is so hard to understand?

No, it's not at all, actually. It's a collection of coincidences, nothing more. If it were scientific you would be able to provide a mechanism, a predictive tool that could be tested. You've provided two observations, both of which could be overturned at any point in time. Star won a title in only their seventh year of existence, so already we've overturned your first observation, that a corps needs consistent leadership for 15 years or more before they will win their first title.

Additionally, you've even acknowledged that Crown has had consistent leadership for 20 years now. That's well over the 15 required by your theory, so why haven't they won a title? Why haven't they ever even placed third at finals? Because by itself having consistent leadership doesn't actually mean squat. Mark Arnold began directing the Blue Knights in 1985, nearly 25 years ago. How close is that corps to contending for a title? Greg Orwoll began directing the Colts that same year. Do you really think they are more likely than the Bluecoats to win their first title?

Actually, forget all that. The Cadets first won DCI in 1983. That also happened to be George Hopkins' very first year as corps director. Obviously consistent leadership wasn't a requirement for them to win that title, was it? Nor four titles out of next five years.

So all you're left with is the thought that a corps needs to finish third or better before winning their first title. Well you've already shown us how little you think of this requirement by announcing how quickly you'll abandon this position if Crown wins this year. You're correct, they haven't won yet, but they're consistently beating the top names in the game. Isn't that exactly what CI should claim is impossible? If I'm off here, please tell me why.

See, this is exactly where your thought process comes up short, because you haven't provided any explanation, any mechanism for how a corps can manage to place top three for the first time. To get a bronze medal, a corps will have to beat at least one of the three current elites of the activity, and top at least two corps who already have six or more titles to their name. If the judges are willing to make a decision like that, why wouldn't they be willing to place that same corps on top, if they thought that said corps deserved those numbers?

Bottom line, you've made some interesting observations on the past history of DCI, but observations that have little to no bearing on future results. You've found some interesting correlations, but haven't found a single reliable cause to which to point as a predictor of future occurrences. The only thing more disturbing than the fervor with which you back your hypothesis as science is the condescension you display toward anyone who disagrees with you.

[Bruckner8]

Oh good, some healthy debate.....

You claim to base all of your theories on science.... so show me one... just one piece of scientific evidence that Crown must be far superior in all captions to win. I'm all for using past evidence to support theories, but when you make conclusions such as this, it is beyond ridiculous and is disrespectful to the judging community. I know you say that it's not the judges "fault," but that still gives them no credit for their best effort to score the corps correctly. You said it yourself that you think Cadets show is better this year, yet Crown is handily beating them in the GE rep. sub caption. Does this C.I. theory only apply to finals? Let's say hypothetically Crown does win.... but places like 5th in guard or percussion or something. If that happens, are they still undeniably better in ALL captions?

C.I. is a great theory for explaining why the same corps always win/finish high... but when you make the conclusion that a corps with less C.I. has to do much better than a corps with a lot of it to barely beat them, you are clearly implying that the judges are either consciously or sub-consciously affected by C.I. After all, only the judges directly affect the corps placements. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sure seems to me this is what you're saying. So if this is the case, then some corps in the past with less C.I. must have received a lower score than they deserved... right? Could you please tell me when this has happened?

I look forward to you responses.

And here they are...I aim to please.

Note that using the scientific method is what I claimed. (Observe, Hypothesis, Test [and back-test if possible...which is certainly the case here], Observe, Modify, Repeat.) So far, so good.

My claim about having to win all captions is a GUESS on how it will have to go down in order to DISPROVE the current CI. Feel free to go to fromthepressbox.com and do your own analysis on the new winners...you'll see what I mean. And it's even HARDER NOW, since there are more quality corps to go around. (It used to be easy to win a lot of captions...it's was the birth of SLOTTING, after all) The spread will have to be there in other captions, in order for Crown to get 5th in another and still win. My entire point on this is to illuminate how difficult it is to beat the CI...that's all. It'll take a herculean effort. A monumental effort. A HISTORIC EFFORT. Sheesh...I get flabbergasted at this sometimes. It's seems so simple. Just pointing out history.

CI is the determining factor in close calls. I'm cool with it. I said that in the OP too. If I were a judge, and it were very close, of course I'd take the easy road and "give it" to the worthy competitor that has demonstrated the metric most consistently in the past. The "loser" will have to be that much better next time. NO PROBLEM! It puts pressure on the new corps to DO SOMETHING NEW AND OBVIOUSLY MORE EXCELLENT. (and even if they do...2nd or 3rd this time...1st next year, assuming they can do it again!) I don't care if the judge is doing it outright consciously...MORE POWER TO THEM. I never claimed they were...I only claimed that I wouldn't blame them if they did. It's equally valid to "give it" to the NEW COMPETITOR, assuming you want to reward FRESHNESS in lieu of SAME OLD. BUT IT'S A LOT EASIER TO MAKE A VERY DIFFICULT DECISION, WHEN THE DECISION HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE. It's human nature, especially when a job is VERY DIFFICULT.

I hope every judge and every DCI official has heard of the CI theory, and took pause when they thought about it. Maybe through reverse psychology, we'll see a pattern of FRESHNESS over the next few years! Heck when the chief judge literally said "judging is more art than science" he made a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY FOR CROWN!!!! Ya see, that was a cop-out by the judging community, maybe as a response to CI! (HA!) Everyone wants new blood in the hunt. But darnitall, Cavies, BD and Cadets are just so good all the time! Maybe if we judge it using more art (subjectivity) and less sheets (science), we can justify getting some new blood in there!

As far as giving you examples of corps with lower CI have been scored lower, I can't read minds. But I did put one very important claim in the OP about the reverse: When corps with high CI "suck" in a given year (ya know, 3rd or lower, lol), no matter where they place, almost EVERYONE ['cept homers, of course] agrees that they should've been LOWER. Perfect example in 2008. If you read DCP regularly, almost everyone agrees Cavies were too high. That's how I put it in the OP. Now, if you want to say that Crown 2008 had no CI, and therefore got scored lower, go ahead. But my focus is on the higher CI corps, and what they do. It's a very subtle, and important, distinction.

[Matt_S]

For all that, you never once answered the man's very first question.