Big Bad Bari Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Other facts: Cadets has had the same leadership for over 20 yrs. Cavies has had the same leadership for over 15 yrs. BD has had the same leadership for over 15 hrs. If I were to use this data to make a prediction of "who's most-likely to win that hasn't?", I'd first look to corps with long and consistent leadership. Carolina Crown has had the same leadership since its inception, 1990. They are certainly going about things the right way, and they've improved regularly. With a Top 6 finish this year, LOOK OUT in the not too distant future. (but they'll have to finish in the Top 3 first, see above) Same can be said for the Bluecoats. Although the director is young and relatively new with 5 yrs on the job, he was also a marching member and drum major. There are other key players that have been there for a long time...some since the Bluecoats inception in the early 70s. With a 4th place finish in 2006 and plenty of momentum (7 consecutive yrs of improving placement), Blooo seemed to be on the threshold of the Top 3 in 2007. The Glassmen have had consistent leadership since 1997. With over 10 yrs experience, they should be getting some serious consideration as well I'm sorry if I'm remiss in mentioning Blue Knights, Crossmen and Boston Crusaders, but between them they've had maybe 3-4 Top 6 finishes all-time! They never seem to be a factor. Maybe they have leadership issues! (I didn't do the research, but I have a hunch.) So back to the traditional Top 6: BD, SCV, Cavies, Cadets, Phantom and Madison. The last non-Top 6 corps to finish in the Top 3 was Star in 1993. The last corps before that was 2-7 and Bridgemen in 1980. SINCE 1981, only SEVEN different corps have been in the TOP 3, and 2 of those only did it a few times (Madison and Star). This is what I call Competitive Inertia. All of that history is almost impossible to overcome. You see it in all subjectively judged events. It's humanly impossible for judges to "blank out" all of that inertia and start with a clean slate every year, especially when corps have such consistent leadership, and that leadership is always putting the same bug in DCI's ears all the time. It takes time to build up CI, and all the while the ones with the inertia are building more, rolling downhill while the rest push uphill. Same thing happens in baseball, when Barry Bonds' or Tony Guinn's strike zones are shrunk based on their past. They have such a history of being good, that it makes umpires give them breaks. Happens in the NBA too, especially when Jordan was at the top of his game. When one of the Top 3 has an "off year" (ie, finishing lower than 3rd), every non-homer is usually in agreement that wherever they placed, they probably should've been lower. It's very, very difficult for judges to overcome the inertia. (And homers, too!) Crown 2007 gets lots of props here. Do you really think Crown would've placed in the Top 3, or--heaven forbid--WIN this year, NO MATTER HOW GOOD THEY WERE? My conclusion is: Human nature makes it impossible b/c of Competitive Inertia. For a new corps to break that inertia (ie, create their own), it will have to be in a class by itself in all captions that year. If there's any single point of contention, the new corps will never get the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, even if that corps IS clearly better, it will only make it to the Top 3...it'll have to be even better the next year in order to win. I'm not saying the judges are unfair. I'm saying I understand their incredibly difficult task, and how their job is simplified by relying on Competitive Inertia. I don't blame them one bit. I blame the lower corps for not recognizing this, and not rising up to meet this standard. If we're to get new blood in the top 3, then it's incumbent on those new corps to be darn good for a consistent period of time. They need to make it obvious. They need to have consistent leadership, with a clear, credible and persistent voice during critique and winter activities. Success breeds success. Build Competitive Inertia. Safe for another year. No new champion. No new blood in Top 3. The universe is right again. In a year where Bloo couldn't afford to stumble, they did. Crown just did what they always do: Put a one-rank pipe organ on the field (different octaves of the same sound, ho-hum), and make sure it's close to the stands when it's loud. (and I love 'em for it, although I prefer multiple colors.) The only real surprise from a CI standpoint is Madison: I was absolutely certain they would make it into the Top 8 this year, based purely on CI, and nothing else, lol. Doesn't everyone want them at next year's TOC shows? Somewhere in the annals of posts last year, I quipped about Spirit making it to top 12, based solely on their "return to Atlanta," but I think they earned it. (ty for stumbling, Glassmen) OK, so who's going to make it to the Top 3 next year who hasn't? Who's going to win who hasn't? CI is a b!tc4! I would not argue that it is necessarily competitive inertia... there are a few other factors at play. The level of maturity of the top 3-4 corps is dramatically different than those of other corps. This is not simply age, but maturity as a performer. Frankly speaking, the majority of performers in the top 3-4 corps have performed for several years in other corps prior to coming to these corps. In the case of corps below this mark, many coming to the organization have not had as much experience and for many this is their first experience performing with any corps. Take Blue Devils, Cadets or Cavaliers, for example... their membership is comprised of kids from nearly every other corps out there. The same cannot be said for any other corps. So, I suggest it is not a question of inertia, but simply of recruiting as a primary factor. There are other factors past this point, but are all pointless to discuss when this is the one factor that is unique to these programs. While I agree with this at at high level...I would be confident in saying that Cadets over all other "elite" corps has the most true drum corps rookies. Most people will tell you that have been involved with the corps, they recruit on work ethic, not just raw talent and experience. Word hard and amazing things will happen. 2011 a great example. <Take Blue Devils, Cadets or Cavaliers, for example... their membership is comprised of kids from nearly every other corps out there. The same cannot be said for any other corps.> I don't know about Bluecoats, Crown, SCV, or Phantom...but I 'expect' they're also attracting members with experience in other corps, as well as retaining their own members for 2-6 years...which makes them not only super experienced, but in synch with the teaching and processes of these fine corps. I believe CI explains why these four rarely (if ever) win far better than talent and ability. This year, I think the top three corps simply had better products with which to work, with the exception of Phantom, which (imo) had a top three product. I completely disagree with the competitive inertia concept. It is just plain fact that outside of drum corps that the same companies seem to do well, this is because all companies are not run equally and the talent, direction, drive, attentiveness and tempo of these companies leadership are also NOT equal. It may not be a popular concept here on DCP but well... Some people are better at some things than other people, sometimes because of talent but not always... Sometimes someone just works you under the table... So now we draw the parallel to drum corps... Please re-read the previous paragraph and replace the word company with corps. On an individual level... It is said that 5% of the people in sales generate 80% of the commissions. Now all these people are capable of the same things (as long as they are all willing to put in the work to be of equal skill) and yet it will still work out the same way... Why is this? Certainly not competitive inertia... Rather it is because of someone's personal desire for achievement. If what you are going for is an awesome experience for your members and you do not believe you can do that while chasing a championship... You will get what you expect. If you believe you can do both... You have a better shot and if you do it well with a do not quit attitude you will compete at a high level for as long as you like. My example is Gayle Royer, Mr. Royer is a man who WOULD NOT BE DENIED and it certainly can be argued that since Gayle has passed, that SCV does not have the same driving factor behind them. I am truly sorry for this outright example and hope that it is not offensive to too many people but I honestly believe it is an excellent example of what I am saying... Now this concept only works in leadership positions however... People like Barry Bonds take away from their organization as a whole because as you cater to the big star... All the people who used to be professionals become his support staff and stop having the self belief and gusto to make a difference themselves. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCImonkey Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Doesn't Cadets falling from 3rd to 5th.....and jumping to 1st defy the logic of C.I.? They were going backwards? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euponitone Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Doesn't Cadets falling from 3rd to 5th.....and jumping to 1st defy the logic of C.I.? They were going backwards? No, that has nothing to do with it. His entire premise (and one you would have picked up immediately if you read his initial post), is basically that you have to place in the top 3 before winning a title. I'm pretty sure the cadets have done that once or twice before... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schickmeister Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Man...some people just don't get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruckner8 Posted August 17, 2011 Author Share Posted August 17, 2011 I completely disagree with the competitive inertia concept. It is just plain fact that outside of drum corps that the same companies seem to do well, this is because all companies are not run equally and the talent, direction, drive, attentiveness and tempo of these companies leadership are also NOT equal. It may not be a popular concept here on DCP but well... Some people are better at some things than other people, sometimes because of talent but not always... Sometimes someone just works you under the table... So now we draw the parallel to drum corps... Please re-read the previous paragraph and replace the word company with corps. On an individual level... It is said that 5% of the people in sales generate 80% of the commissions. Now all these people are capable of the same things (as long as they are all willing to put in the work to be of equal skill) and yet it will still work out the same way... Why is this? Certainly not competitive inertia... Rather it is because of someone's personal desire for achievement. If what you are going for is an awesome experience for your members and you do not believe you can do that while chasing a championship... You will get what you expect. If you believe you can do both... You have a better shot and if you do it well with a do not quit attitude you will compete at a high level for as long as you like. My example is Gayle Royer, Mr. Royer is a man who WOULD NOT BE DENIED and it certainly can be argued that since Gayle has passed, that SCV does not have the same driving factor behind them. I am truly sorry for this outright example and hope that it is not offensive to too many people but I honestly believe it is an excellent example of what I am saying... Now this concept only works in leadership positions however... People like Barry Bonds take away from their organization as a whole because as you cater to the big star... All the people who used to be professionals become his support staff and stop having the self belief and gusto to make a difference themselves. Did you read the part of CI where I discuss the people involved, and how their continued leadership matters? Granted, I didn't assign all of the passion (er, ego) you did to it, but I was trying to be subtle about it, choosing to focus on the competitive outcome, to boil it down to a simple testable result: "one most first finish 2nd or 3rd before one is allowed to win." In my closing "arguments" I even stated "success breeds success." My final statement was "Build Competitive Inertia." Ponder that for a minute... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandra Clark Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) Inertia: The tendency of matter to remain at rest if at rest, or, if moving, to keep moving in the same direction, unless affected by some outside force. OR...a tendency to remain in a fixed condition without change; disinclination to move or act. Competitive: involving, or based upon, competition Competition: I think we know this one - Big Bad Bari comes, I think, from the position that the members are in charge of their result, as a sales person is largely in charge of the number and quality of their sales. But drum corps has a bit of a disconnect between the members and the results. Two things stand in the way: the nature of the show (product) they've been given to sell (ie: a great salesperson hawking obsolete widgets will not do as well as a mediocre salesperson shucking glitzy new internet connected widgets...) - AND the subjective nature of the judging community. It's this latter aspect that affects a corps' result more than any other. CI, I think, is a clear psychological explanation of the behavior of our judging community. Edited August 17, 2011 by Sandra Clark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruckner8 Posted August 17, 2011 Author Share Posted August 17, 2011 Inertia: The tendency of matter to remain at rest if at rest, or, if moving, to keep moving in the same direction, unless affected by some outside force. OR...a tendency to remain in a fixed condition without change; disinclination to move or act. Competitive: involving, or based upon, competition Competition: I think we know this one - Big Bad Bari comes, I think, from the position that the members are in charge of their result, as a sales person is largely in charge of the number and quality of their sales. But drum corps has a bit of a disconnect between the members and the results. Two things stand in the way: the nature of the show (product) they've been given to sell (ie: a great salesperson hawking obsolete widgets will not do as well as a mediocre salesperson shucking glitzy new internet connected widgets...) - AND the subjective nature of the judging community. It's this latter aspect that affects a corps' result more than any other. CI, I think, is a clear psychological explanation of the behavior of our judging community. I just got goosebumps. Someone completely understands CI. It's an admission/explanation of human behavior, and how some leaders know/choose to use it to their best advantage. You could put the 150 most-talented members with the current Pioneer organization, and it might not make finals. In fact, the best Pioneer could do is 2nd or 3rd, initially...also an admission/explanation of human (judging) behavior. This why CI will never be debunked. Human behavior likes things to remain the same. Successful corps follow the formula, and judges judge to the formula. If the formula changes (TOC anyone?), the smart money will be on the same organizations, because they will learn the new formula more quickly. Think about this for a minute: Take two scenarios, (1) one that has BD's organization take over Pioneer's, and (2) one that has the 150 most-talented members always go to Pioneer (but org remains the same). Which scenario would win first? I claim scenario 2 would never win. Scenario #1 would probably win within 5 years (after coming in 2nd or 3rd, of course!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRacer Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Successful corps follow the formula, and judges judge to the formula. Let's not forget that successful corps help write the formula judges judge to. ;) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruckner8 Posted August 17, 2011 Author Share Posted August 17, 2011 Let's not forget that successful corps help write the formula judges judge to. ;) Absolutely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brians Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) in most cases it boils down to MONEY! Give any corps enough money to go out and buy the best designers and staff away from the top corps now, buy the best equipment, vechiles, cooks, administration ie.. tour director etc... and I will show you some inertia. Edited August 17, 2011 by brians 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.