A: Competitive Inertia

[SFZFAN]

Would it be PC to say that CI is BS?

[mobrien]

there was NO WAY BLOO WAS GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO BEAT CAVIES AT FINALS.

Because Cavaliers held a slight but consistent edge in Visual GE, and was very competitive in both brass and percussion performance. Bluecoats had an excellent group of performers this year, but the visual package and totality of show concept was a little lacking in comparison to Rosemont. So it had nothing to do with what was "allowed" and everything to do with the realities of the situation.

In order for ANYONE to knock Devils off the top, either the criteria will have to be changed for what constitutes General Effect, or everyone else will have to come up with another approach that the judges can be convinced is even MORE cutting edge than what BD is doing. Cavaliers tried splitting the difference this year (fan friendly but still thematically-integrated), but didn't quite get there with it.

With the new power structure at the Board level, it'll be interesting to see what new rules are proposed and passed for next year. Personally, I wouldn't mind a rule that handicaps the score of corps who use large set pieces as integral parts of a corps' visual design, since very few corps are financially able to afford the cost of transporting and purchasing the sets, and they can give those who use them unbalanced competitive advantage. Try and imagine BD's show without the mirrors, and you get the concept.

[jwillis35]

Although Bloo seemed to hold CAvies at bay heading into Finals, there was NO WAY BLOO WAS GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO BEAT CAVIES AT FINALS. I then changed my prediction to Bloo in 3rd (never posted on DCP though). Bloo has the lowest CI of the contenders.

And here we are. Bloo in 3rd. Look at the recaps...the spreads...the slots. Bloo's Finals performance was way better than their semis...but their score went DOWN. That's because there needed to be enough "space" between them and Cavies, and still get BD their 98.x.

I don't disagree with you that Bluecoats had a better performance at Finals, nor do I disagree that the judges fall into the slotting trap; but it was obvious to me (and many others) that Bluecoats simply did not have the GE or Visual numbers to match Rosemont. Bluecoats had brass, drums, and guard that were all right there with Cavaliers (and they should have beat the Cavs in brass), but taking 4th in both GE captions and in Visual Ex hurt the 'Coats.

I think the judges got that part of it right. I was hoping they would come in 2nd at finals as well, but I don't lie to myself and I call it like it is, even if the corps is one I like or favor. The Bluecoats visual package, while much better, was still not on the same level as Rosemont. Their marching execution at finals was lacking, and I noticed timing errors in the feet and with drill sets hitting all 3 days at finals. Also, the GE in their show was good but not great. There were visual movements written into the ballad that just took away from the music. It's just little things here and there, nothing major. They were top 3 and that's amazing!

But it wasn't CI that kept them in 3rd place, it was not cleaning feet, timing errors, and just not having the visual design of a perennial big dog (like the Cavaliers) to get that spot. Maybe next year they take it all.

[GUARDLING]

Because Cavaliers held a slight but consistent edge in Visual GE, and was very competitive in both brass and percussion performance. Bluecoats had an excellent group of performers this year, but the visual package and totality of show concept was a little lacking in comparison to Rosemont. So it had nothing to do with what was "allowed" and everything to do with the realities of the situation.

In order for ANYONE to knock Devils off the top, either the criteria will have to be changed for what constitutes General Effect, or everyone else will have to come up with another approach that the judges can be convinced is even MORE cutting edge than what BD is doing. Cavaliers tried splitting the difference this year (fan friendly but still thematically-integrated), but didn't quite get there with it.

With the new power structure at the Board level, it'll be interesting to see what new rules are proposed and passed for next year. Personally, I wouldn't mind a rule that handicaps the score of corps who use large set pieces as integral parts of a corps' visual design, since very few corps are financially able to afford the cost of transporting and purchasing the sets, and they can give those who use them unbalanced competitive advantage. Try and imagine BD's show without the mirrors, and you get the concept.

HMMMM ok im trying to understand why you think a corps should have a handicap because maybe they dont have the means of another corps Does an olympic skater who has more money to buy ice time verses one who cant be given a handicap? NO...Mirros or not ( Which I liked ) could have just as easily be beaten by a corps with no big props ( Cavies )

[Bruckner8]

Would it be PC to say that CI is BS?

Political Correctness has nothing to do with a theory based on the scientific method (http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml). I merely make observations, propose the CI theory, and test it every year. It has yet to be debunked. Feel free to state where it has failed, thus making you call it BS. Use the link provided as a guide to show my failures.

[mobrien]

HMMMM ok im trying to understand why you think a corps should have a handicap because maybe they dont have the means of another corps Does an olympic skater who has more money to buy ice time verses one who cant be given a handicap? NO...Mirros or not ( Which I liked ) could have just as easily be beaten by a corps with no big props ( Cavies )

"Practice time" and "large set pieces that are essential to the visual design" aren't the same thing. Take away the mirrors, and BD's visual program doesn't have much to work with. Don't get me wrong - I liked them, and how they used them, but there should be some consideration as to whether it's competitively responsible to allow those can afford to purchase and transport big set pieces to have a scoring advantage over those who can't.

At a certain point, it's worth remembering that the rules in any sport are there to restrict the competitors. Whether it's salary caps or rules against holding in football, rules are usually there to promote parity in the actual playing of the game. IMHO, BD's mirrors were SO important to the visual scores they got that they might be considered an unfair advantage over those corps whose budgets might not allow for them to haul around items that large.

Edited August 16, 2010 by mobrien

[year1buick]

Competitive Inertia is preserved. Bloo is now allowed to win.

Early in the summer (after the season had enough shows), I picked Bloo to finish in 5th place.

I was wrong. But that was when everyone considered Cadets and Crown to be contenders. In fact, Crown and Cadets both beat Bloo in the early season. CI implies that the corps with the lowest inertia finishes last. (Just like Bloo did in 2007, which I also predicted, and then wrote this theory)

Then Bloo broke Crown's winning streak (July 7, Akron). I predicted this win as well (a bone, home show), and I went on to predict that Bloo would not beat Crown again.

I was wrong again. After all, Crown still had a lot more CI going...we didn't yet know that Crown wasn't a contender after all.

Crown and Bloo traded wins with each other, but the last time Crown beat Bloo was July 22, in Houston. By the following weekend (Murfreesboro and Atlanta) it was clear that neither Crown nor Cadets had contending shows (amazing performances on given nights, but not contenders.)

BD on their own island, and then Bloo and Cavies. Although Bloo seemed to hold CAvies at bay heading into Finals, there was NO WAY BLOO WAS GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO BEAT CAVIES AT FINALS. I then changed my prediction to Bloo in 3rd (never posted on DCP though). Bloo has the lowest CI of the contenders.

And here we are. Bloo in 3rd. Look at the recaps...the spreads...the slots. Bloo's Finals performance was way better than their semis...but their score went DOWN. That's because there needed to be enough "space" between them and Cavies, and still get BD their 98.x. If you have any faith in the spreads (I don't), then the judges seemed to think Bloo was more like Crown than Cavies...lol.

Finally, my main point, which seems to be missed by the bashers of CI: CI only matters when IT'S CLOSE. Cavies and Bloo were very close, so the "tie goes to the runner" (to the corps with the most CI). This makes it easier for the judges to do their difficult jobs (which I stated in the original post, top of this thread). I don't blame the judges for putting Cavies 2nd over Bloo...I'm sure 50% of the people out there agree with the placement, CI or not! My point is that Bloo wasn't OBVIOUSLY superior in the judges' minds, even though the judges seemed to think so a week earlier. Bloo's 2nd place position going into Finals is what I call "a bone." It's a little pat on the head to the new-comer, "good job, boy!" (but CI sarcastically says "this won't last" lol). Some thought Blue Stars should've beat SCV. Umm, nope. They weren't CLEARLY better to be allowed to beat SCV in Finals. They may have been SUBTLY better...but it has to be CLEAR in order to overcome CI.

The future: Madison will be higher than 10th in 2011. The G7 is now firmly established, with Bloo joining the TOP 3 club. Just imagine how difficult it will be for Boston or Blue Stars to get into the TOP 8 in 2011. Neither one of them has any CI, except maybe Blue Stars, since they are another "NewStar." And this assumes SCV and Phantom figure their stuff out...quickly! I think Phantom will be OK. SCV seems to have lost its way on so many levels, it makes this former SCV member sick. As Crown found out, it's even MORE difficult to stay on top. Bloo has to come out with a vengeance next year, or they will be spanked HARD. BD, Cavies and Cadets WILL BE THERE.

The TOP 6 might mean something again. If 2010 Madison is in 10th place, it's a GREAT YEAR FOR DRUM CORPS!

I cannot WAIT for 2011.

Or, CI could be a nice way to rationalize why some corps just don't get it done as well as others sometimes. It's always outside forces conspiring to hold people back, lol. CI is all well and good until a particular team scores higher--well, then they #### well earned it, of course! If they score lower or don't move up--well, CI just wouldn't allow it. I think it's funny how just as many people on here will ##### and moan when a corps does jump a place or two at Finals-- because it was rigged, of course!

LOL, which side is one to believe?

[year1buick]

Political Correctness has nothing to do with a theory based on the scientific method (http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml). I merely make observations, propose the CI theory, and test it every year. It has yet to be debunked. Feel free to state where it has failed, thus making you call it BS. Use the link provided as a guide to show my failures.

How did it apply in 93, when Regiment went from 8th to 3rd? Do you think that corps had ANY inertia as it walked off the field in 92?

[BRASSO]

. Although Bloo seemed to hold CAvies at bay heading into Finals, there was NO WAY BLOO WAS GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO BEAT CAVIES AT FINALS. I then changed my prediction to Bloo in 3rd (never posted on DCP though. Bloo's Finals performance was way better than their semis...but their score went DOWN. That's because there needed to be enough "space" between them and Cavies, and still get BD their 98.x.

Finally, my main point, which seems to be missed by the bashers of CI: CI only matters when IT'S CLOSE. Cavies and Bloo were very close, so the "tie goes to the runner" My point is that Bloo wasn't OBVIOUSLY superior in the judges' minds, even though the judges seemed to think so a week earlier. Bloo's 2nd place position going into Finals is what I call "a bone." It's a little pat on the head to the new-comer, "good job, boy!"

This " theory " only works come Finals if you the believe the judging panels at Semi's got together with the Finals judges and told the Finals judges that " NO WAY ARE YOU GOING TO ALLOW BLOO TO BEAT CAVIES AT FINALS.

The poster here states with a degree of certainty that " Bloo's Finals performance was way better than ther semi's ".

I'm always leary of people that make such claims. For instance, most fans... even long time fans.... have an expertise in perhaps one, or at best 2 captions. For example, a brass musician can tell us if in their opinion, a Corps was " on " regarding their brass playing. Maybe even in Visual and marching. But would they know if the percussion line was "on " ? No....... if someone plays drums, would they know if the Corps was " on " in Brass and did " a better performance " ? Or if the Guard performance was " on " ? Of course not . Even a Color Guard judge at Semi Finals could not make the claim that the" Bluecoats Finals performance was way better than their semi's " as this poster does. Even 2 judges, judging the same caption, on the same nite of a competition can not decide even in their own judged caption whether or not the Corps is " better " that nite. They often disagree ( look at Atlanta caption breakdowns) that nite. The suggestion that judges in Finals then would somehow not allow the Bluecoats to beat Cavies because of what another judging panel thought " a week or so earlier " ( or last year ) is just plain silly, imo.

Edited August 16, 2010 by BRASSO

[Bruckner8]

I don't disagree with you that Bluecoats had a better performance at Finals, nor do I disagree that the judges fall into the slotting trap; but it was obvious to me (and many others) that Bluecoats simply did not have the GE or Visual numbers to match Rosemont. Bluecoats had brass, drums, and guard that were all right there with Cavaliers (and they should have beat the Cavs in brass), but taking 4th in both GE captions and in Visual Ex hurt the 'Coats.

I think the judges got that part of it right. I was hoping they would come in 2nd at finals as well, but I don't lie to myself and I call it like it is, even if the corps is one I like or favor. The Bluecoats visual package, while much better, was still not on the same level as Rosemont. Their marching execution at finals was lacking, and I noticed timing errors in the feet and with drill sets hitting all 3 days at finals. Also, the GE in their show was good but not great. There were visual movements written into the ballad that just took away from the music. It's just little things here and there, nothing major. They were top 3 and that's amazing!

But it wasn't CI that kept them in 3rd place, it was not cleaning feet, timing errors, and just not having the visual design of a perennial big dog (like the Cavaliers) to get that spot. Maybe next year they take it all.

First, let's define "slotting." Slotting is when you look a recap, and the first place finisher has 1s all the way across, 2nd place has 2s, etc. BD was certainly slotted for 1st, and Cavies for 2nd. Maybe BD actually deserved all those 1s. Everyone seems to agree that Bloo should've beaten Cavies in brass. Bloo was also beating Cavies and BD in GE Music until Finals. I don't think they ever finished lower than 3rd in GE Music all summer. But Bloo got lots of 3s and 4s. No one claimed Bloo was flat. Therefore, the judges must have thought "####, this is close. I'll give it to the people who've been here before."

Visually, no one will argue with that. Advantage Cavies on all fronts, but Bloo is closing that gap. You even said "perennial big dog." That sounds like CI-type thinking. The past should not be used as a predictor in this activity...but CI shows that it is. I'm not even saying I disagree...I think the tie SHOULD go to the "big dog," so that the lower corps figure out how to BEAT them, not just tie them.