2009 Could be Carolina Crown's year

[mellodramatic]

Bluecoats got 4th in brass on Finals night 2007, not Quarters.

oops my bad

[salad315]

The best explanation is always the simple one. The reason why most corps placed 2nd or 3rd prior to winning is that DCI is extremely competitive at the top. Once you're "in the ballpark" in terms of a design and performance level, it still may take several years before you get the right combination of show, talent and competitors to win a championship. But there's no cause and effect at work here. Maybe Crown gets lucky and all those factors come together the right way next year.

I've got no problem with this - seems pretty logical, and there's no real way to separate this 'theory' from CI, they could both be true

Where CI really sounds ludicrous is in predicting that, say, Madison has a better chance of winning in 2009 than does Crown, because they were a medalist two decades ago. The list of things Madison has to take care of before they have a chance of winning again is pretty long. In contrast, Crown basically needs a show design on par with 07, and brass and guard performances that convince the judges to put them on top with some spread in those captions.

I believe Madison obviously does not have as good a chance at winning next year as Crown. I'll go as far to say that SCV does NOT have as good a chance as winning as crown. Does that make me disbelieve CI...??...whatever. I will say that if in 2010, Madison and Crown were somehow at the same level, Madison would get the nod....if I were to bet on it. Obviously all things are not equal though.

McGarr is a very experienced judge; he knows what spreads mean. If he though Crown was "WAY MORE" than a tenth superior to the Cavies, he'd have given them a bigger spread - he had them 0.7 over the Cavies in Atlanta, for example. Are you really going to argue that Crown was far superior to the Cavaliers in brass at finals, but CI rose up and smacked McGarr silly? It seems much simpler to say that 2 weeks out, McGarr saw clear differences between the two lines, but by finals he thought they were comparable, and his spreads reflect that.

As far as this - when you have 3 corps together, and everyone is 19 or above, you really cant give a much bigger spread. I guess he could have given out some 20's like the stinkin visual judges did for bd, but im glad he didnt. I actually find it hard to believe, given the cavies book vs crowns book, that cavies could have improved that much relative to crown. Not sure where the room for improvement was, relatively speaking

[Bruckner8]

The best explanation is always the simple one. The reason why most corps placed 2nd or 3rd prior to winning is that DCI is extremely competitive at the top. Once you're "in the ballpark" in terms of a design and performance level, it still may take several years before you get the right combination of show, talent and competitors to win a championship. But there's no cause and effect at work here. Maybe Crown gets lucky and all those factors come together the right way next year.

All true. Except it won't be luck. CI accounts for the possibility that Crown may be CLEARLY SUPERIOR IN ALL CAPTIONS, and in that case, they may get rewarded.

Direct Quote from my OP on CI: "For a new corps to break that inertia (ie, create their own), it will have to be in a class by itself in all captions that year. If there's any single point of contention, the new corps will never get the benefit of the doubt. "

So, you're not saying anything new.

You said: "Where CI really sounds ludicrous is in predicting that, say, Madison has a better chance of winning in 2009 than does Crown, because they were a medalist two decades ago."

I'm just having fun with the fact that CI predicts ZERO chance for Crown. I will say this: Madison will beat Crown again before Crown wins. Like it or not, Madison has a lot more overall CI than Crown. 20 more years. Almost all of those years were GLORIOUS years. Everyone wants Madison back in it, fans, DCI, even the judges. There's a HUGE (but subtle) INERTIA behind Madison.

You said: "Are you really going to argue that Crown was far superior to the Cavaliers in brass at finals, but CI rose up and smacked McGarr silly?"

I did not hear Crown nor Cavies at field level, nor do I know what captions McGarr judged. All I know is this: I heard both shows from the stands 3 times practically back to back, and I concluded Crown hornline to be superior to Cavies. But I knew (thanks to CI) that one of two things was going to happen:

1) Cavies were going to beat Crown in brass anyway.

2) If Crown beat Cavies, it would be by a very small margin.

I know it irks people that I'm pulling for Crown, yet still able to be realistic about their scoring opportunities.

Like I said in the last paragraph in the CI post: Crown needs to make it MORE obvious.

[27/soa]

I will say this: Madison will beat Crown again before Crown wins.

When Madison's staff as a whole has been together for more than one season, and when Madison gets 600 auditionees, and when the guard doesn't need an alumni-sponsored scholarship program (to entice warm bodies), THEN I would consider the possibility of what you say.

[gellio]

I will say this: Madison will beat Crown again before Crown wins. Like it or not, Madison has a lot more overall CI than Crown. 20 more years. Almost all of those years were GLORIOUS years. Everyone wants Madison back in it, fans, DCI, even the judges. There's a HUGE (but subtle) INERTIA behind Madison.

You said: "Are you really going to argue that Crown was far superior to the Cavaliers in brass at finals, but CI rose up and smacked McGarr silly?"

I did not hear Crown nor Cavies at field level, nor do I know what captions McGarr judged. All I know is this: I heard both shows from the stands 3 times practically back to back, and I concluded Crown hornline to be superior to Cavies. But I knew (thanks to CI) that one of two things was going to happen:

1) Cavies were going to beat Crown in brass anyway.

2) If Crown beat Cavies, it would be by a very small margin.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You're argument gets more and more ridiculous with each passing day. Madison will beat Crown before Crown wins DCI? Laughable. If we're talking inertia, this Madison alum would argue that Crown has a lot more inertia than Madison. Who knows? You could end up being right, but it will have nothing to do with this "so-called" CI if you are.

To try to get it through your head again - the reason no one has won w/o placing 3rd prior has nothing to do with this "so-called" CI - it is a coincidence and nothing more. It is because of BD, Cavies, Cadets and to some extent Santa Clara, whom have won all but 5 of the last 37 championships. It is difficult to win because as of late three of those four have been so dominant and it is extremely difficult to beat all three (Cadets, Cavies and BD) in one season. Period! THAT is a much more sound argument than your "so-called" CI. Whether Crown finishes 1st or 8th next year, it has nothing to do with CI.

I've already outlined what it takes to win a championship - no need to repeat myself. Again, nothing to do with CI.

Re: Cavies vs. Crown - I'd like to exactly know what your judging qualifications are! I tend to think McGarr is much more qualified than you, and I'm sure most on here would agree with me.

Bottom line - you're attempt at coming across as some type of genious with this CI argument is back-firing. There is no argument and no case to made for CI. To base and entire argument on a coincidence - that's just dumb.

Edited September 2, 2008 by gellio

[mellodramatic]

I could see where the corps that have won before get more benefit of the doubt, because I think that happens. Some judges would be terrified to go into critique with, say, Wayne Downey or one of the big names and tell them why they were down x tenths to team y. I wouldn't call it "competitive inertia" though, because inertia is the tendency of a body to have a constant velocity unless acted upon by an outside force. Crown seems to have a ton of momentum, which would mean unless something bad happened to them, they're either going to stay the exact same (which is unlikely unless every other corps near them has the same "velocity") or they'll go up (I'll argue this because it's not often that top 3 corps have a lot inertia, because they've all pretty much won before). Hope my physics ramblings make sense.

[Jared_mello]

a few people have said "the word" in this thread, therefore they're doomed for next season.

[mellodramatic]

a few people have said "the word" in this thread, therefore they're doomed for next season.

"Star" ?

[Bruckner8]

I could see where the corps that have won before get more benefit of the doubt, because I think that happens. Some judges would be terrified to go into critique with, say, Wayne Downey or one of the big names and tell them why they were down x tenths to team y. I wouldn't call it "competitive inertia" though, because inertia is the tendency of a body to have a constant velocity unless acted upon by an outside force. Crown seems to have a ton of momentum, which would mean unless something bad happened to them, they're either going to stay the exact same (which is unlikely unless every other corps near them has the same "velocity") or they'll go up (I'll argue this because it's not often that top 3 corps have a lot inertia, because they've all pretty much won before). Hope my physics ramblings make sense.

Note that Inertia can also mean a "body at rest stays at rest...." it's not always about things in motion. Corps that win tend to keep winning. It's very difficult for new corps to break into that eschelon, even when they have a lot of momentum, like Crown does now (and Bloo, from 2000 to 2006...7 consecutive years of increasing placement).

[Kekkles]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You're argument gets more and more ridiculous with each passing day. Madison will beat Crown before Crown wins DCI? Laughable. If we're talking inertia, this Madison alum would argue that Crown has a lot more inertia than Madison. Who knows? You could end up being right, but it will have nothing to do with this "so-called" CI if you are.

To try to get it through your head again - the reason no one has won w/o placing 3rd prior has nothing to do with this "so-called" CI - it is a coincidence and nothing more. It is because of BD, Cavies, Cadets and to some extent Santa Clara, whom have won all but 5 of the last 37 championships. It is difficult to win because as of late three of those four have been so dominant and it is extremely difficult to beat all three (Cadets, Cavies and BD) in one season. Period! THAT is a much more sound argument than your "so-called" CI. Whether Crown finishes 1st or 8th next year, it has nothing to do with CI.

I've already outlined what it takes to win a championship - no need to repeat myself. Again, nothing to do with CI.

Re: Cavies vs. Crown - I'd like to exactly know what your judging qualifications are! I tend to think McGarr is much more qualified than you, and I'm sure most on here would agree with me.

Bottom line - you're attempt at coming across as some type of genious with this CI argument is back-firing. There is no argument and no case to made for CI. To base and entire argument on a coincidence - that's just dumb.

you don't even know how to spell.

it's kind of saddening that none of you arguing against bruckner8 understand how science works. sigh...