2009 Could be Carolina Crown's year

[Medeabrass]

The Cadets have "Played the game, won the game, and changed the game" ... 20 years ago. Say what you want about competitive inertia, but "creative entropy" is also a factor.

So true. I've never heard it put like that before. I less eloquently call it "creative in-breeding."

[Medeabrass]

He must not have been at the banquet the night before, when 32 age-outs received their "crowns".

That doesn't seem like that many to me unless they're unable to retain most of the other 118.

[gellio]

I don't know. My gut feeling tells me that Crown is different than Coats, Glassmen, and BC. One thing is for sure, they've got people on staff who know how to get a team to the top. I for one don't think '09 will be their championship year though. I'm aiming for '10 or '11 (yikes, this decade has gone by in a flash).

Exactly. I knew in 1989 that Star was going to be a champion, and soon. I remember being ###### after finals, thinking it was BS that they beat us. After watching the videos (then the DVDs), I was shocked they didn't place 4th. It is perhaps one of the only placements I disagree with. You could definitely tell Star crossed a threshold in 1989. Was it innovative? No. Was it a championship design? No. But, the drill was well written, and clean as hell. The hornline reached championship caliber IMO. I remember in 1990 someone I knew saw Star early in the season, when they were losing heavily to Phantom and Cavies. He said, their show could beat everyone if it was clean, and sure enough, they got third.

I feel the same way about Crown. They are different than Bluecoats, Glassmen, Crossmen and BAC. The Bluecoats were great in '05-'08. I personally thought '07 was the best corps they ever put on the field. Glassmen were awesome in 1998, 1999 and especially 2001 (IMO - that was their best). BAC was great in '00 and '02. But, IMO none of these groups achieved what Crown did this year. What set Crown apart was their entire show from top to bottom was championship caliber, and executed on a championship level. There were just three corps where were better.

[Perry S]

And 36 years doesn't mean a hill of beans, considering that since 1972 (it's really 37 years) we have had 37 championships, and only 5 of those were not won (or tied) by BD, Cavies, Cadets or Santa Clara (1972, 1975, 1988, 1991 and 2008). It has much more to do with these four corps being consistent at the highest level, then this "so-called" CI.

AMEN!

[ShortAndFast]

But I would pipe up and say "Do you know, that in the 36 yr history of DCI, no corps has ever won w/o first placing 2nd or 3rd previously? Do you realize that Crown hasn't yet done that?"

Correlation is not causation. Until this year, we had gone 24 years with the semi-final winner going on to win/tie for the championship. These patterns work until they don't. They're useless for predicting outcomes.

The main problem I have with your argument in this thread is that your theory doesn't really get to the level of how scores are "caused" in DCI. Nobody sits down and discusses what overall placement a group shall receive. Each judge has to watch the performance and assign a number in their caption. Ultimately they have to be able to justify the numbers they give (in critique, to other judges, to the judging officials at DCI, etc.) against the sheets or they won't be judging regionals/championships for very long.

When the brass judges this year listened to Crown, do you really think they were counting how many championships the other groups had won? Or even how many Ott trophies? This year's final scores in Brass were

1. BD 19.7

2. Phantom 19.6

3. Crown 19.3

4. Cavaliers 19.2

5. Cadets 19.1

In other words, the judge thought the top 2 were very close, and gave the judgment call to BD. He also thought the next 3 were very close, and gave the judgment call to ... the group that's never won, never won brass and never placed in the top 3. How does that fit with the CI theory's prediction that the "benefit of the doubt" is given to previously successful groups?

To win, mathematically, Crown needs to perform in most captions at a level that will convince most judges to place them in the top cluster of numbers, even if they don't get the top spot. As Phantom proved this year, you can certainly come up with the win with a bunch of "close 3rds" in captions if you have one or two captions where you are clearly perceived as superior. I think this mostly has to do with the "what" and "how" of the corps' performance, and not much at all to do with whether they've previously received a medal.

Edited September 1, 2008 by ShortAndFast

[salad315]

Correlation is not causation. Until this year, we had gone 24 years with the semi-final winner going on to win/tie for the championship. These patterns work until they don't. They're useless for predicting outcomes.

The main problem I have with your argument in this thread is that your theory doesn't really get to the level of how scores are "caused" in DCI. Nobody sits down and discusses what overall placement a group shall receive. Each judge has to watch the performance and assign a number in their caption. Ultimately they have to be able to justify the numbers they give (in critique, to other judges, to the judging officials at DCI, etc.) against the sheets or they won't be judging regionals/championships for very long.

When the brass judges this year listened to Crown, do you really think they were counting how many championships the other groups had won? Or even how many Ott trophies? This year's final scores in Brass were

1. BD 19.7

2. Phantom 19.6

3. Crown 19.3

4. Cavaliers 19.2

5. Cadets 19.1

In other words, the judge thought the top 2 were very close, and gave the judgment call to BD. He also thought the next 3 were very close, and gave the judgment call to ... the group that's never won, never won brass and never placed in the top 3. How does that fit with the CI theory's prediction that the "benefit of the doubt" is given to previously successful groups?

To win, mathematically, Crown needs to perform in most captions at a level that will convince most judges to place them in the top cluster of numbers, even if they don't get the top spot. As Phantom proved this year, you can certainly come up with the win with a bunch of "close 3rds" in captions if you have one or two captions where you are clearly perceived as superior. I think this mostly has to do with the "what" and "how" of the corps' performance, and not much at all to do with whether they've previously received a medal.

Yeah....crown beat some people in brass this year. Wohooo. I bet they had to be better than the cadets for about 3 weeks before they actually beat them.

[Bruckner8]

Correlation is not causation. Until this year, we had gone 24 years with the semi-final winner going on to win/tie for the championship. These patterns work until they don't. They're useless for predicting outcomes.

The main problem I have with your argument in this thread is that your theory doesn't really get to the level of how scores are "caused" in DCI. Nobody sits down and discusses what overall placement a group shall receive. Each judge has to watch the performance and assign a number in their caption. Ultimately they have to be able to justify the numbers they give (in critique, to other judges, to the judging officials at DCI, etc.) against the sheets or they won't be judging regionals/championships for very long.

When the brass judges this year listened to Crown, do you really think they were counting how many championships the other groups had won? Or even how many Ott trophies? This year's final scores in Brass were

1. BD 19.7

2. Phantom 19.6

3. Crown 19.3

4. Cavaliers 19.2

5. Cadets 19.1

In other words, the judge thought the top 2 were very close, and gave the judgment call to BD. He also thought the next 3 were very close, and gave the judgment call to ... the group that's never won, never won brass and never placed in the top 3. How does that fit with the CI theory's prediction that the "benefit of the doubt" is given to previously successful groups?

To win, mathematically, Crown needs to perform in most captions at a level that will convince most judges to place them in the top cluster of numbers, even if they don't get the top spot. As Phantom proved this year, you can certainly come up with the win with a bunch of "close 3rds" in captions if you have one or two captions where you are clearly perceived as superior. I think this mostly has to do with the "what" and "how" of the corps' performance, and not much at all to do with whether they've previously received a medal.

A few things about your post.

Correlation/Causation: Duh. What's your point? All I've done is recognize a few patterns, and build a theory based on it. Feel free to criticize said theory, but ya gotta come up with something a lot more compelling than Corr/Caus! For even if Crown wins next year, I'll still be able to modify the theory to say "A coprs must first come in 4th,3rd or 2nd before being allowed to win." and it will be 100% accurate using the data. The only thing that will change is the number o fcorps finishing 4,3 or 2 and NOT win(Bloo would be added to the list).

I've even said in posts since my original CI post that CI can be found in individual captions. Bloo WON BRASS all summer in 2007, and even in Quarter Finals (First non-champion corps to win a caption outright during finals week, btw). However, somehow, even though they were BETTER on Finals night than QTtrs, they came in 4th! Is it possible that the other three coprs were EVEN MORE BETTER? (xcuz the grammar) Of course it is. But wow...Bloo was winning all brass summer.

Your point about Crown being 3rd is brass doesn't disprove CI at all. It adds to it, because I said that a corps will have to be OBVIOUSLY better...and Crown WAS obviously better than Cavies...even the judges knew that. So what's your point? Some here think Crown's hornline was #1...what prevented them from becoming #1?

[the bougwa drummer]

I want to see them break in to the top three. i'm tired of knowing that 1st will either be cavies, blue devils, or phantom. cavies and blue devils more so than phantom in the last decade. but still. phantom made me pretty happy, i know it's kind of a sticky situation with all the criticism ans scrutiny and all that. but it's a decent change. i want 09 to be a toss-up. i doubt it, but you never know until the season starts. CROWN_ 1st place 09 is a dream of mine. =] GO CROWN!

[ShortAndFast]

Yeah....crown beat some people in brass this year. Wohooo. I bet they had to be better than the cadets for about 3 weeks before they actually beat them.

Well, here's a summary of the Crown vs. Cadets spreads at 3 points in the season

				   VE	ME   |  VP	VE	CG   |  BP	ME	PP
Jun 28 Madison	 -0.9  -0.4 |  --	-0.2  --   |  --	-0.3  -0.3
Jul 12 Orlando	 -0.3  +0.5 |  +0.2  -0.3  +0.2 |  +0.2  +0.1   0.0
Aug 9  Bloomington +0.3  +0.7 |  +0.5  -0.3  +0.5 |  +0.2  +0.9  +0.3

In which captions do you think they were being unfairly held behind Cadets prior to their Orlando victory? Both Madison and Orlando were Fan Network shows, so you can go back and watch those videos for yourself. To my eye, Crown did improve a lot in music effect and ensemble between those two shows, as the spreads indicate. They also benefited from the addition of the brass and guard judges.

[thePerfectbuzz]

I want to see them break in to the top three. i'm tired of knowing that 1st will either be cavies, blue devils, or phantom. cavies and blue devils more so than phantom in the last decade. but still. phantom made me pretty happy, i know it's kind of a sticky situation with all the criticism ans scrutiny and all that. but it's a decent change. i want 09 to be a toss-up. i doubt it, but you never know until the season starts. CROWN_ 1st place 09 is a dream of mine. =] GO CROWN!

not to throw a statistical fact off topic.....BUT ya know in the past ten years Cadets do have three golds as well. and have medaled a few other times. but i guess we count them out of title contention now?