should corps that do not go to regionals go on last ?

[roosevelt]

And it may just be me, but did your thread topic and your one-line troll post match?

speaking of troll post

[audiodb]

I think it does matter when corps go on and agree with the OP's concern about advantage one corps gets by only attending the last few regionals.

My first reaction to this was "how can missing those shows be an advantage?". Then I saw this:

Troopers:

Allentown: 68.1

Atlanta: 70.30

San Antonio: 73.95

Denver: 73.575

Stanford: 79.85

Average - 73.155

Mandarins:

Allentown - substitute Modesto 66.025

Atlanta - substitute Long Beach 70.110

San Antonio: 72.775

Denver: 73.15

Stanford: 77.1

Average - 71.832

I thought they only averaged the last two regionals for quarterfinals seeding. I certainly didn't think they'd throw in shows as early as 2007's Allentown (July 7) and Atlanta (July 14) as "regionals". That's just crazy. I'm surprised the corps would devise a system that creates an advantage for skipping early shows.

Why don't they just seed quarters based on the previous weekend's scores, like regionals are seeded?

Edited December 27, 2007 by audiodb

[cwallace600]

On the subject of Troopers QF seeding, the variable no one has yet mentioned is that Troopers were inactive in 2006. They went on first at a LOT of shows last summer because of that.

Regardless of any of the math mentioned on this thread Troop would have performed first.

[Tom Brace]

On the subject of Troopers QF seeding, the variable no one has yet mentioned is that Troopers were inactive in 2006. They went on first at a LOT of shows last summer because of that.

Regardless of any of the math mentioned on this thread Troop would have performed first.

How dare you cloud this issue with your use of facts. Please let us continue to speculate about how some evil plan was concocted by DCI to favor certain corps over others. And how do we work G Bugles into this discussion...somehow all of this MUST be related to the use or disuse of G Bugles.

[BOBSMYTH]

After reading all of the thread, I wonder if anyone has paid attention to the fact that scores are horribly inconsistent in the lower tier. Judges are much more cautious with the far-upper tier (maybe because they get their butts chewed out when there's a slight points differential), but there are POINTS worth of swing from day to day for some corps - and I don't mean 1-2 points. And I noticed that many scores for the lower tier went way down at regionals while the upper eschelon remained relatively consistent.

I just don't get why this happens. Maybe someone will explain why it's ok to mess around with the lower tier scores so much. I can't believe a lower tier performance is really 3-5 points worse on Saturday in Allentown or San Antonio than it was on Friday somewhere else. Sure, there are day-to-day inconsistencies in the lower tier, but that much?

As for the problem of seeding: it's a matter of placement rather than scores. But because we only have one shot at a full head-to-head competition there's no easy way to seed based on placement. Conundrum, anyone?

There may be times when there is inconsistency in judging.

However -

The judges have 2 assignments: to rank and to rate. We tend to focus on the 2nd one - the rating or the score. IMO, the 1st task is the more important of the two. Ideally, it would all make sense - a 75 in one show would equal a 75 in another. But I would much rather have my score go down 2 points and still be placed in the correct relative placement against my peers than to have my score go up 2 points while I was dropping 3 placements.

To answer your question - yes, that much variation. If, during the Friday show, Corps X did not have any peers in its relative scoring range, there is no incentive for the judges to get the score exactly right AND no close peers to judge against in that show in order to fine tune the numbers. Perhaps there were other factors as well: weather, field conditions, crowd size and response, etc.

Oh - and the lower tier corps do tend to be the ones that have the most inconsistencies in their performances from night to night. I would hope that this would also be reflected in their scores - and it appears that it is.

[cwallace600]

How dare you cloud this issue with your use of facts.

I'm all about clouds, Tom...the stinkier the better.

[Pinwiz]

Oh - and the lower tier corps do tend to be the ones that have the most inconsistencies in their performances from night to night. I would hope that this would also be reflected in their scores - and it appears that it is.

I saw Troop at both Stanford and Clovis, and the corps was on fire at Quarterfinals. I knew every problem area for the show, and Troopers nailed it. They were within 0.05-0.2 of Cascades at both shows. Their drop in score was criminal, but Troop was DCI's yo-yo in 2007 (see Denver). I firmly believe that their score was based upon when they performed on Thursday.

My problem isn't that PC, Academy, and Mandarins didn't travel out to the East Coast. It's within their rights, and I support any corps making the hard decisions for their own health. The problem is that they got credit for comparable California shows where West Coast Inflation/going on last after Div II/III. There's a definite argument to be made that Troop got royally screwed at Quarterfinals.

(And that's not even including Denver. At the time, the general consensus was that Hutchinson was too high but the Denver score was WAY too low. And that score counted for Quarters.)

And you know what?

It doesn't matter for 2008.

There's big regionals on the West Coast every weekend leading to San Antonio. This situation will not happen again, and odds are that the system as it is written will work out fine for 2008. Let's just have DCI keep an eye on things so this doesn't happen in 2009 or 2010 or...

And I bet if this were to involve Southwind instead of Troopers, there would be 1/4 of the outcry.

[roosevelt]

Regardless of any of the math mentioned on this thread Troop would have performed first.

Than why did pioneer first then