2008 Standings

[Shadow_7]

...And the "Tick System" was aborted because..........?

Because once you reach zero, you have too many ties.

(just kidding, sort of)

Although I think the tick system could be used. And I may even want it used. Certain design aspects of the build up system leads to shows that are too demanding too soon, or too interpretative. In 2004 GCS has something like 8 scatter drills out of about 100 (+/- 20) sets. Even in 2008 Austin Stars has at least 3 scatters. I think with the tick system, drill would be a little different. As scatter drill is written dirt IMO. I'm always left wondering how it will be interpreted by the judges. Will they recognize it as a scatter, and not just another dirty form? Do the judges even understand what a scatter drill is? One would think that under the tick system, there would be fewer scatter drills in general.

I've only done one show where there was an actual need for a scatter drill. And the show concept was drumcorps in a round. Basically the show ended in the same set it started on. And in theory that meant that we could start the show sequence on any one of the many tunes of that show. Although I don't we ever got around to changing the sequence more than once that year. And I suppose that the design could be such that there could be no scatter drills. But I definitely understand the simplicity of scattering to regain proper hornline alignment, after ten plus minutes of shuffling the deck. Hopefully the judges do too.

[MiniSopGuy]

Full Standings

1-

2-

3-

4-

5- down

6- down

7- down

8- down

9- 80.250 Renegades (Freemont, CA DCI 7/20)

10- down

--Open Class Finalists Cut-Off--

11- down

12- down

13- down

14- 73.363 SoCal Dream (Freemont, CA DCI 7/20)

15-

16-

17-

18-

20-

21-

22-

23-

24-

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!

Can't wait to get back on the field in Rochester

And next week we add our closer!!!!

Edited July 28, 2008 by MiniSopGuy

[camel lips]

Because it was similarly subjective. Not in the same *way* that buildup is subjective, but similarly.

Reward for achievement is always a better educational system than penalty for lack thereof.

I, personally, have always thought a combo of both buildup and tick would be a good mix to help get things right.

tick on field, buildup upstairs, or some mixture downstairs and upstairs. I don't have all the answers, but that would make sense to me.

On the topic of judges in any of the circuits..

These guys are great in both circuits, folks. They have a very difficult job in front of them, ESPECIALLY on first-read situations.

We're in a strange place in that as staff we get to build relationships with DCI judges like the NE does with DCA judges all season long. They look at what we're doing, try to discern our intent, critique what they're looking at from a *very* fair, objective standpoint, and then give excellent commentary on where we are, and how to move forward. In the last two years, DCI judges have been REMARKABLY accurate in their assessment of *us*. (not commenting on the read of my MCL brothers & sisters, as I am unfamiliar with the circumstances of the situation).

I can recall when I first joined CV the humorous exercise in trying to decipher a DCI score and adding 16, holding your right hand on your left ear and singing "Am I Blue" while dancing the Watusi on one foot. In just the last two years, the DCI judges have been falling right in the progress curve between DCA-judged performances and have been giving amazingly insightful and helpful commentary and critique.

I know how hard that job is. I know that I wouldn't want to be the guy in the green shirt trying to tell the difference between a 93.4 and a 93.5 corps or caption. Regardless of score or spread, I have rarely seen where I've disagreed with ranking.

Oh, and Crown should've won Saturday night. LOL

Who are you and what have you done with Jerald???

[camel lips]

Bolded: Hmmm..... That's very interesting. Although, given how low MCL's score is (lower than they got at Manassas Park, 3 weeks earlier) I'm not sure how solid the 'Bama DCI scores for DCA corps are. However, until everyone goes head-to-head, this is the best info we've got.

As I predicted (not that it was a huge task, or anything) the race for second is tight, with 6 corps in a 4.5 range. Kilties are a nice surprise, with 2 scores this weekend solidly in the high-70's-to-80 range.

Most curious is White Sabers' 6 point jump in one week. So: Was Endicott too low? Was Chambersburg too high? Or did they suddenly kick it in gear? In any case, good job, Dansville crew.

Overall, lots of interesting aspects to this year's DCA race. As others have noted, the Renegades & Minnesota always keep the pot bubbling because they don't come up against the other powers until Prelims. (esp 'Gades, since they are otherwise done with their comps.) With so many A corps in various regions, they have little idea of how they actually stand either.

The old-timers may have a different opinion, but it seems to me this an awful lot like the early 70's junior corps, where the regional contests kept everyone in the dark about how Nats were going to look until everyone actually met (whether VFW/AL or early DCI). That is, until national touring brought all of them together most of the time, or at least very regularly. Even so, DCI isn't always easy to figure out. And, other than one corps here, most everyone else is probably within at least a couple of spots to their final placements, but nothing is very clear yet.

Everything is still too bunched up right now to know where placements will fall.

Im not ready to make any predictions just yet.Probably after next weekend I will have a clearer picture of who the top 10 will be and can probably rank them close to where they will fall come finals.

[muFoXsic]

Most curious is White Sabers' 6 point jump in one week. So: Was Endicott too low? Was Chambersburg too high? Or did they suddenly kick it in gear? In any case, good job, Dansville crew.

....either way, thank you.

[Jeff Ream]

I would have to say there are plenty of first reads every weekend in DCA and every night in DCI that go unanswered with an overnight reward of 1.4 Either you guys are great at critique s or you've found a formula in the Midwest that hasn' t been found yet on the east or west coast.the judges are supposed to evaluate each performance equally based on the sheets so they must have of been off on sat and got it right on Sunday.DCA judges are weak .My opinion of course

ever wonder if maybe they just had a batter show?

[Jeff Ream]

Why is that Liz? Don't forget ye olden daze had the build up part of the score (analysis) along with the tear down part (execution tics). IMO tic system had many flaws but execution is ignored in the scores today unless the errors are glaring enough to be noticed by the analysis judges.

your tic may not be the same as my tic, and trust me, performance comes into every sheet. if you have a big hit that's supposed to happen, but the impact falls apart...even on GE that affects your number.

[Jeff Ream]

Certainly the tick system, "as was" couldnt be used today, but the real loss I feel has been in the junior ranks. With the idea of an objective tick system, there was at least some criteria that judges were held to. Judging cleanliness or dirtiness was something anyone could do and even the most modestly educated observer could tell if drums played together or flags went up and down and all around together and so on. Making it all build up, relieves the judge of considering actual performance as the primary determinant, instead allowing them to worry about the esoteric and design components which have little to do with how well (or not) the performers are performing.

I guess I always felt that ticks kept everyone honest. if you were a corps youd better have your stuff together and if you were a judge you better rate accurately on the basis of execution because everyone can see or hear what you are seeing and hearing.

except there was no clear definition of what a tick was. if your snares tuned high, every little fuzz came thru clearly. if you tuned muddier, you could get the benefit of the doubt...if the judge liked your tuning.

from stories i have heard, a lot of what a tick was came from what the judge liked/didn't like, so really, was it any less subjective? I've never seen a rule book explaining specifically what a tick was...it was subjective upon the judges tolerance

[Morphy00]

QUOTE (Sal Rosenburg @ Jul 28 2008, 11:02 AM) *

I would have to say there are plenty of first reads every weekend in DCA and every night in DCI that go unanswered with an overnight reward of 1.4 Either you guys are great at critique s or you've found a formula in the Midwest that hasn' t been found yet on the east or west coast.the judges are supposed to evaluate each performance equally based on the sheets so they must have of been off on sat and got it right on Sunday.DCA judges are weak .My opinion of course

ever wonder if maybe they just had a batter show?

That's impossible!! The judges are the ONLY factor in what score a corps gets. I know we, as a corps, felt very good about our Sunday show and many things came across better than they did on Saturday. The guard had an amazing show that day and we corrected a few music tears from the night before.

But how dare they give us a higher score...

Edited July 29, 2008 by Morphy00

[Jeff Ream]

ahhhhhhhh sarcasm