Score observation...

[pistolpete]

It would be in DCI's best interests if there were 7 or 8 different champions over the next decade. I predict ticket and merchandise sales would increase dramatically if that scenario ever happened.

And life on DCP would never be the same.

[vferrera]

What's the largest number of different champions in any decade:

50s VFW - 3 (St. Vinnies, Cavies, SAC)

60s VFW - 5 (SAC, Cavies, RA, Kilts, Troop)

70s DCI - 4 (AK, SCV, MAD, BD)

80s DCI - 4 (Cadets, BD, MAD, SCV)

90s DCI - 6 (Cadets, Cavies, Star, BD, PR, SCV)

00s DCI - 3 (Cadets, Cavies, BD)

Seems like the average is 4 +/-

[heather anne]

Not that many people are into statistics here, but I did a simple linear regression analysis for all the Div 1 corps in 2006, 2007.

The typical result is that corps improve by about 0.35 pts per day regardless. "Day of season" accounts for 95% of the variability in score. All other factors (performance, judging panel, weather, etc) account for 5%

The day to day fluctuations are typically less than a point. So, if two corps are separated by 1.0 or more, there is almost no chance that their relative placements will change.

Ooh! I'm a Statistics major, so it's much easier for me to understand when you put it in this context!

I like that this analysis is more concrete than "oh, that judge is stupid, and that's why X's score went down/up/stayed the same". It's hard to argue with numbers.

[dciguy1987]

Sure, but a review of the numbers and placements would verify whether it is all in our heads or not. If we 'think' there were more placement and score swings 20 years ago, and we prefer that, then that is as far as we have to go.

I know all about the boxes for design and the boxes for execution. Anybody who has marched in DCI has probably been given at least a crash course in how that works.

Has is occurred to you that this is not the same activity as it was 10-20 years ago? We have gone from essentially local member based corps to national and international memberships. There is also a concentration of member/staff talent with the top corps. These factors alone make it almost impossible to get into the top 5, which is where a corps needs to be to have a shot at 1st place by finals night. The top corps are placing higher than the others because of this concentration, not a judging factor at all.

[Pinwiz]

I don't know the answer...neither do you. Certainly, wide swings of 4-5 points from night to night are not ever going to be the norm, but even if they were, I fail to see how they would hurt the activity...after all, the activity survived (and "thrived") in the mid-80s with events and wide swings such as the ones involved in the original post.

I'm all for a reasoned revamp of the scoring system, but I don't think competitive inertia is what is hurting the activity. It certainly wasn't behind the success of the activity in the 80s.

I wonder how results would have changed in previous years if the ratio were changed. Say 60% execution and 40% design?

Great. Now I have to break out the spreadsheet.

[EDIT: Has anyone archived the subcaption scores from previous years? They're not on DCI's site anymore.]

Edited July 25, 2008 by Pinwiz

[The Tsar]

Has is occurred to you that this is not the same activity as it was 10-20 years ago? We have gone from essentially local member based corps to national and international memberships. There is also a concentration of member/staff talent with the top corps. These factors alone make it almost impossible to get into the top 5, which is where a corps needs to be to have a shot at 1st place by finals night. The top corps are placing higher than the others because of this concentration, not a judging factor at all.

I don't think you're getting my essential point.

No one brings it on Finals Night better than some of the top corps. I know that come Finals Week, certain corps are going to have an advantage due to experience and talent.

However...in the regular season, it HAS to be disheartening to get beaten by a show that isn't even finished yet, simply because of its design...would you not agree? Let me give you a hypothetical situation:

The 2010 Cavaliers come out with their show unfinished...their closer isn't on the field, and they aren't even playing it standing still. And because of the difficulty of the show, the show is quite dirty.

Meanwhile, the Blue Knights come out on fire. This is their best show in 20 years, it's completed, and because it isn't as complicated as the Cavaliers' show is, it is being marched quite cleanly. The brass is great, the percussion is great, the guard is great....they are most likely shooting for a top five, even top three placement when it is all said and done.

In this scenario, how much money would you put on the Blue Knights beating the Cavaliers? I know I wouldn't stake more than a few beers on that result, because you and I both know that the Cavaliers are more than likely going to win this show.

THAT is my big problem. The judges get so enamored and wrapped up in the potential of the show (and how well the guard integrates into the show, and how well the musicians tell the story, and how great it is that the Declaration of Independence is being depicted through the drill, blah blah blah...) that they forget to notice that the Blue Knights brass was actually better on this night, and maybe their percussion was cleaner as well, and maybe they marched better, etc.

Look....I know demand must be factored in. But in my mind, demand doesn't start to become a real issue until near the end of the season, as things get cleaned up. Same with the design. Early season, call them like you see them! If the designs are so much superior, they will sort themselves out. Just like they have for the past 30 years.

Look, I'm just stirring the pot here, mostly because I'll be retiring from DCP within the week due to my new job. But I do find it gratifying that people are actually thinking about this and coming up with consenting and dissenting opinions of their own. I am saddened that -as it stands now- there will never be seasons like 1988, where there was a lot of back-and-forth, and you really didn't know who was going to be in what spot come Finals.

Alas.

The world has moved on.

[Tekneek]

Has is occurred to you that this is not the same activity as it was 10-20 years ago?

And this should matter to me? As a fan, I don't have to consider their problems. I only have to consider whether or not I find it entertaining.

We have gone from essentially local member based corps to national and international memberships.

This is well known. Not sure why you felt the need to point this out.

There is also a concentration of member/staff talent with the top corps.

Already well known...

These factors alone make it almost impossible to get into the top 5, which is where a corps needs to be to have a shot at 1st place by finals night.

Not offering much insight here. I don't think a corps won from outside the top 5 even under the tick system. I will go through and see...which means this particular point may have nothing to do with concentration of staff or membership talent.

The top corps are placing higher than the others because of this concentration, not a judging factor at all.

My point did not have anything to do with the "top corps" and where they placed. It had everything to do with all of the corps, all of the scores, and all of the placements, over an entire season.

[Pinwiz]

I am saddened that -as it stands now- there will never be seasons like 1988, where there was a lot of back-and-forth, and you really didn't know who was going to be in what spot come Finals.

Alas.

The world has moved on.

It may not be the same, but also we've had years like 2006 where 11 of the top 15 placements changed based on their last performance. SCV wasn't going to magically jump into 3rd, but corps who performed the best were definitely rewarded that weekend.

[dciguy1987]

I don't think you're getting my essential point.

No one brings it on Finals Night better than some of the top corps. I know that come Finals Week, certain corps are going to have an advantage due to experience and talent.

However...in the regular season, it HAS to be disheartening to get beaten by a show that isn't even finished yet, simply because of its design...would you not agree? Let me give you a hypothetical situation:

The 2010 Cavaliers come out with their show unfinished...their closer isn't on the field, and they aren't even playing it standing still. And because of the difficulty of the show, the show is quite dirty.

Meanwhile, the Blue Knights come out on fire. This is their best show in 20 years, it's completed, and because it isn't as complicated as the Cavaliers' show is, it is being marched quite cleanly. The brass is great, the percussion is great, the guard is great....they are most likely shooting for a top five, even top three placement when it is all said and done.

In this scenario, how much money would you put on the Blue Knights beating the Cavaliers? I know I wouldn't stake more than a few beers on that result, because you and I both know that the Cavaliers are more than likely going to win this show.

THAT is my big problem. The judges get so enamored and wrapped up in the potential of the show (and how well the guard integrates into the show, and how well the musicians tell the story, and how great it is that the Declaration of Independence is being depicted through the drill, blah blah blah...) that they forget to notice that the Blue Knights brass was actually better on this night, and maybe their percussion was cleaner as well, and maybe they marched better, etc.

Look....I know demand must be factored in. But in my mind, demand doesn't start to become a real issue until near the end of the season, as things get cleaned up. Same with the design. Early season, call them like you see them! If the designs are so much superior, they will sort themselves out. Just like they have for the past 30 years.

Look, I'm just stirring the pot here, mostly because I'll be retiring from DCP within the week due to my new job. But I do find it gratifying that people are actually thinking about this and coming up with consenting and dissenting opinions of their own. I am saddened that -as it stands now- there will never be seasons like 1988, where there was a lot of back-and-forth, and you really didn't know who was going to be in what spot come Finals.

Alas.

The world has moved on.

Sorry, really tired today...I agree with you. I remember seeing Cavies in 2004? Bond show...closer not on the field, doing babies first drill and playing For Your Eyes Only...sucked to be down to some thing like that. But the judges job is to evaluate what is on the field at that moment and the rest of Cavies show was strong. I don't think you see the scenario you suggested any more (like we used to) because every one has learned what it takes to design a great show, knowing that you will change a percentage of it over the summer to get it in line to get the most credit possible. Corps used to come out strong and fade, arguing that very point. It is unfortunate that there is not really a very level playing field any more. The really strong corps are a blessing and a curse.

[dciguy1987]

Perhaps some statistical analysis might demonstrate any differences between the way the numbers are coming out these days compared to 10, 15, 20, and 25 or so years ago (obviously intending to not go into the tick system, which would really throw it off). There is definitely a perception out there that the performance of each corps on each day has minimal impact on their scores for that day or the progression of those points throughout the summer. I cannot help feeling that corps are often judged on reputation first and performance second. It is the major flaw in any subjective judging process.

Performance makes design intent more clear and therefore get more credit. If a corps has an off night, it affects all captions and we see that from time to time. I could not disagree with your reputation/performance statement more.