A: Competitive Inertia

[Bruckner8]

Actually, after reading Bruckner8's most recent post, it appears as though what I've done is explain the reasons behing competitive inertia...oh well, hopefully it was a good read for some of you at the very least.

Richard, that's exactly what I was thinking as I was reading your post! WHY is the design so good (and critical)? WHY do members continue to go to BD, Cadets, Cavies? WHY do the best instructors get pulled toward those corps?

Because these corps have built up CI, and they've done it with conststent, competent leadership (in Admin and staff, BTW).

It's a cycle, or a circle, self-efficacy. The rich keep getting richer. Any other cliches?

Who hired the quality designers? Who hired the quality staff? Cadets go through designers and staff turnover maybe more than BD and Cavies, but they're always a factor. The message from the top is clear.

But make no mistake about my point: The fact [i claim] that the judging community grants value to CI is also a MAJOR FACTOR in contributing to the efficacy (and continuing to make the design, quality staff, and quaity membership look good).

And again, I don't blame the judges. I blame the lower corps for not figuring it out.

Crazy analogy: The recent play of the NE Patriots. They've been accused of running up the score on weaker opponents. Umm, it's incumbent on the defense to stop the other team's offense. If they cannot do that, then they will be scored upon. Period. It's not NE's problem that their offense cannot be stopped, and it's not in their best interest to "hold back a little." The inferior team either has to score more, or shut down NE's offense.

Are Cadets, BD and Cavies running up the score? Of course they are, since they have so much inertia. Good for them! Instead of whining about judging, or complaining about antics of leadership/design, maybe the rest of us should step back and try to understand what makes all of that work, and then learn from it.

[markdewine]

Great thread, with a lot of insightful dialogue! I'm surprised no one has thrown the topic of "drum corps politics" into the mix. I know... It's a dirty little topic that nobody likes to talk about, and very few know the real truth about....

But let's face it. It exists in DCI, DCA, it used to be omni-present in the VFW and Am. Leg., CYO, and regional circuits.

I could give examples, and names, but it's all water under the bridge, and I choose not to drag anyone's name through the mud.

So...how does politics fit into Competitive Inertia?

[Peel Paint]

Well that question and the hint of inside knowledge of specific examples certainly carries the potential to trade accusations, drag the thread into the mud, and devolve it into a peeing contest, if that's where you want it to go. I don't see the point. "Politics" (aka "sour grapes") are pretty hard to quantify or prove as the key factor in a key score, anyway.

But Bruckner8 is touching on it in a positive vein when he talks about the skill of key caption heads and directors in manipulating judges being a possible factor.

Who would argue with that, in general terms? Of course it's part of the picture.

Edited November 28, 2007 by Peel Paint

[Bruckner8]

So...how does politics fit into Competitive Inertia?

Quotes from OP:

"...leadership is always putting the same bug in DCI's ears all the time"

"... confident and persistent voice during critique and winter activities"

Without adding on to my already expanding topic, the politics is already inherent into it. And I don't mean that in a negative way, per se. I mean it in a way of the good about politics: Making your voice heard. Being a good comminucator. Pointing out one's strengths (and others' weaknesses!), and making the decision-makers (judges and/or DCI) aware of them. I have no problem with a corps director meeting a judge in a local establishment after a show, and saying "Hey Dr Judge, lemme buy you a beer, and let's talk all-things special about my corps."

That director has just made a very important step toward building Competitive Inertia. If the community sees that as doing a "political favor" (beer for better score), then all bets are off. I see it as beer for time to exchange crucial information, and the judge may be more confident in hearing/seeing the corps in a differnt way next time around.

Just because Judge X knows Caption Head Y for 20 yrs, and they went to school togther doesn't make it inherently bad politics. Yes, the fact that the 2 parties know so much about each other is GOOD, and yes, it can POSSIBLY HELP Caption Y. MORE POWER TO THEM. If I were a Caption Head, I'd want every judge to know exactly what I'm doing/thinking/creating/teaching, for if they truly understand my vision (and the corps achieved Box 5 consistently), then they'd feel STUPID for not giving me the "correct" number!

It's incumbent on the lower corps to facilitate such knowledge-transfer and information as best they can. Call it politics of you want.

The only way to make it completely fair would be to land 9 Aliens on the field at the start of each show. Show them the sheets, and ask them to measure the single performance against it. Then fire them, and get 9 more Aliens for the next show.

But since we're stuck with with fallible humans (and history, and inertia, and politics, and flawed sheets, etc), we may as well recognize these patterns and put them to good use.

[glory]

Of course competitive inertia helps those who have it. Winners win.

What about the instances where the inertia fails? Phantom was a perennial contender in the early 90s (89 too) through 96 only to fall back for nearly a decade. If competitive inertia is so significant, shouldn’t it have kept Phantom in the higher ranks through the late 90s?

It didn’t because there’s more at play than inertia alone. Winning might encourage member and staff retention, judging forbearance and all the other keys to competitive inertia, but it doesn’t guarantee any of them. Other circumstances, including luck and the fortunes of the competition, are at play too.

It’s a useful formula, I think. But like all generalizations, it has it limitations.

One thing more. Inertia can imply motion or rest. Competitive inertia could be interpreted in the instance of rest as competitive stagnation. Maybe competitive momentum is a better term in the context of competitive success?

HH

[Slow Adam]

I'm not here to rehash

Hopkins is not amused.

[drumcat]

Which is where we disagree. I think there is a balance in the sheets. How each judge weights the various elements of the subcaptions will vary a bit from judge to judge as each individual person has some level of "uniqueness" in how he/she evaluates a program. GE is and has always been subjecive.

I disagree, yet again. All shows are not designed to be "gotten" in their entirety with the first read. That would make for a pretty shallow set of shows, IMO. Some are designed that way, and some are not...just like any entertainment medium I can think of.

"Parity" is only good if it is bringing the lower levels up to the top, and not bringing the top levels down. Seems to be happening, actually. The performance quality...and show design quality...throughout the list of corps corps has increased.

Agreed on parity, for the most part. A rising tide lifts all ships.

I won't quagmire this, but I would remind you that a vast majority of ticketbuyers go to one show per year. If there was ever a corps that would have been the posterchild for why you need to get it on the first run, it was VK. They understood that the gags couldn't be something that inspired "huh?". You had to get it, and the way they did it, there was no doubt.

Don't take that as the same as the shows should not evolve over the season. I just happen to believe that corps get too much latitude with explaining their show in advance, and being credited for it. We all agree that without fans and their dollars, this ends. To that end, I think it's important to be clear in concept for someone who only goes to one show.

[drumcat]

As for politics... they exist. They probably exist at your workplace and your sewing circles, too.

[JamMan]

One thing that you havn't included, which would be interesting (though difficult) to study, is the return rate of members during those years mentioned. To have intertia, you must have member continuity. In all sections. Too many new members in one section will have an impact on the entire organization.

Not true at all. Div II had to deal each year with so many new members, yet the corps got better and better.

A good example of lost inertia is SCV 04-05.

[Bari-Player]

You probably shouldn't quote someone's entire post (when it is very long) just to post TWO lines of response.

"yadda yadda

... (Bulk of the quoted post cut)

Yadda"

You're line here

End.

To stay on topic- I would say that CI is probably the single most important thing to gain in the activity, yes it is influenced by many areas... but you gotta be so good to earn the respect of fans/judges/community.

CI is like reputation. It's very difficult to build, and very easy to lose.

Edited March 20, 2008 by Bari-Player