2009 Could be Carolina Crown's year

[gjdavistuba]

2008 was Blue Stars.

Really?

2008 was the year of the Phantom honk.

Which is ok, they were good.

I don't understand whats wrong with the honks...I mean the overhype gets annoying, but if the corps delivers, then who cares?

[thePerfectbuzz]

This statement is absurd. You must have no faith in the judging community. Had Crown performed the best Saturday night, they would have won. Same with anyone else in the top 12. Give me one instance where it was blantantly obviously that a corps that should have placed higher was boxed in in a lower placement. You can't.

wow sorry to state the obvious for everyone here, but you're wrong. the guy you quoted for your reply hit the nail on the head. its not necessarily not having faith in the judging community as its just the consistency of how they filtered the corps as the season progressed. come finals week, there are really about 3-4 corps every season that MIGHT (high emphasis on might) have a shot at winning a championship. the biggest jump we ever saw, was a corps in 4th place semis did as high as to tie for a title finals night....and ironically enough that was the same corps who came in seeded 4th at quarters this past season who prevailed to win.

but to respond more to your statement, even if crown performed the best that night they still wouldn't have won in 2008....maybe placed one placement higher or maybe scored a bit closer, but they would not have won. their show design did not have the same caliber and demand that the top 2 had. BD and Phantom just had much more sophistication in their show design (not saying Crown's show was bad by any means).

[gellio]

wow sorry to state the obvious for everyone here, but you're wrong. the guy you quoted for your reply hit the nail on the head. its not necessarily not having faith in the judging community as its just the consistency of how they filtered the corps as the season progressed. come finals week, there are really about 3-4 corps every season that MIGHT (high emphasis on might) have a shot at winning a championship. the biggest jump we ever saw, was a corps in 4th place semis did as high as to tie for a title finals night....and ironically enough that was the same corps who came in seeded 4th at quarters this past season who prevailed to win.

but to respond more to your statement, even if crown performed the best that night they still wouldn't have won in 2008....maybe placed one placement higher or maybe scored a bit closer, but they would not have won. their show design did not have the same caliber and demand that the top 2 had. BD and Phantom just had much more sophistication in their show design (not saying Crown's show was bad by any means).

We can disagree on Crown's design.

Competitive Inertia is PROGRESS. Progress in obtaining and retaining highly qualified staff. Progress in retaining members, and improving their abilities. Progress in recruiting new, more highly-talented members. Progress in designing better shows. Progress in executing more difficult shows better. Progress in moving up the competitive ranks. It's PROGRESS.

The fact that no one has won who was not previously in the top 3 is COINCIDENCE!!!!

I mean, come on, the fact that the OP is using Pioneer to try and back up his weak argument is proof right there. Of course, Pioneer isn't going to win next year. Of course, no one in their right mind would think that. It would be impossible for Pioneer to improve THAT much over one season.

Winning finals is tough. Beating BD, Cadets AND Cavies on finals night is tough. They are were they are for many reasons - many which I stated above. Phantom did it this year, and that's great. It has nothing to do with competitive inertia. It has to do with, AGAIN, those things mentioned above.

I'm sorry, but 1988 Scouts thwart the whole competitive inertia theory in a single blow. I think we had two members who were in the 1981 corps. Every other vet had only placed 4th at the highest (1985). We were coming off mid-level seasons (1986 and 1987). No one "in their right mind" would have ever thought coming into the 1988 season that we would have a snowballs chance in hell of winning. But, we did. We had talent. We had great staff. We had a well-designed show. We executed that show on a very high level. It had nothing to do with this so-called competitive inertia. The pieces just fell into place. 1989 was extremely different.

Right there- you're theories dead. Peace out!

Edited August 29, 2008 by gellio

[Matt_S]

Is 1988 proof that competitive inertia doesn't exist, or is it the exception that proves the rule?

Honest question, because I'm not sold one way or the other on competitive inertia yet. I do think it's easier for a judge to give out a higher number to a corps that's earned that number in the past, but I'm not convinced that the tendency is as solid as CE proponents are claiming.

[Bruckner8]

Is 1998 proof that competitive inertia doesn't exist, or is it the exception that proves the rule?

The main conclusion of CI is "No corps can win without first coming in 2nd or 3rd in a prior year."

The theory also pointed out that the chances seem much greater if the 2nd or 3rd place finish is in THE PRIOR YEAR.

other analogies exist in life:

"The rich get richer"

"Team X has all of the mementum right now"

"Gotta have money to make money"

"Success breeds success"

The initial CI post also tried to understand WHY?, by recognizing another fact: The [then current] top 3 had consistent leadership for 15-20 years, and the other top 6 had had major longevity in their leadership roles as well, especially during those corps heydays.

Then the post went on to suggest ways to build competitive inertia, through consisten leadership, consistent excellence, and a consistent voice with DCI and the judging community. Excellence is always assumed, duh.

So, come again? I don't see how any of that plays into 1998 at all. It was a TIE between two perrenial powerhouses. So what?

[Tez]

Let's say that in one season, Phantom Regiment and the Cavaliers both have financial problems and decide to not field a corps. Let's say that some major 'deals' are made and most of the staff of the two corps moves over to Pioneer. In turn, Pioneer then gets the majority of the best members of the two corps to audition for them. In this situation, could Pioneer still have no shot at winning? I know it's far fetched, but anything could happen.

This inertia exists because of people, not the name of the corps. What does 2008 Regiment have to do with 1996 or 1989 Regiment... they share the name, and a tradition. But each of these is nothing except for tools to draw the best people to the organization. There is absolutely no reason why Crown cannot win next year. They have a championship quality staff and will in all likelihood get a championship quality recruiting class. Maybe they don't have as much of a chance at winning as Phantom, BD, Cavies, or Cadets... but they definitely have a chance, and a pretty decent one in my opinion.

Let me ask some questions:

Did you think the staffs of the best Glassmen, Boston, and Bluecoats corps were on the same level as the current Crown corps? maybe, but I'd give the edge to Crown.

Do you think the talent of members of the best Glassmen, Boston, and Bluecoats corps were on the same level as the current Crown corps? I would give a heavy edge to Crown on this one, maybe not over the Bluecoats the past few years, but definitely the others.

Speaking of the Bluecoats... I truly believe that with a few changes, the 2007 Bluecoats could have easily won that championship. I think they had the talent... they placed third in music and won brass consistently throughout the year. I think with a better visual design, better colorguard instruction, and better marching basics, they would have been right there at the top. It is not that much of a stretch. So my point is: Bluecoats finished 2006 in 4th.... did have a shot at winning in 2007. Crown finished 2008 in 4th..... probably has an even better shot at winning in 2009.

[Tez]

The main conclusion of CI is "No corps can win without first coming in 2nd or 3rd in a prior year."

The theory also pointed out that the chances seem much greater if the 2nd or 3rd place finish is in THE PRIOR YEAR.

other analogies exist in life:

"The rich get richer"

"Team X has all of the mementum right now"

"Gotta have money to make money"

"Success breeds success"

The initial CI post also tried to understand WHY?, by recognizing another fact: The [then current] top 3 had consistent leadership for 15-20 years, and the other top 6 had had major longevity in their leadership roles as well, especially during those corps heydays.

Then the post went on to suggest ways to build competitive inertia, through consisten leadership, consistent excellence, and a consistent voice with DCI and the judging community. Excellence is always assumed, duh.

So, come again? I don't see how any of that plays into 1998 at all. It was a TIE between two perrenial powerhouses. So what?

The argument of CI is plain wrong because of it's main conclusion:

"The main conclusion of CI is "No corps can win without first coming in 2nd or 3rd in a prior year."

This is an absolute statement, and says nothing about chance or likelihood. Are you going to sit there and honestly tell me that Crown or Bluecoats or any other corps have a 0% chance of winning if they have never finished in the top 3?

I would definitely agree that their chance is lower because of history, but it being 0% is ridiculous.

Does Vanguard or Madison Scouts have a better shot at winning next year than Crown?

Edited August 29, 2008 by Tez

[Bruckner8]

Competitive Inertia is PROGRESS.

True

The fact that no one has won who was not previously in the top 3 is COINCIDENCE!!!!

False. You're even contradicting yourself here, and at the same time misrepresenting CI. CI claims that no one who has not WON will not win until they first make it into the Top 3. But if you actually read ALL of http://www.drumcorpsplanet.com/forums/inde...howtopic=107285 you'd know that. Also, hwo can all of that progress end up being coincidnece? I'm lost on that. What Crown has achieved until now is no coincidence. Someone had to come in 4th...Do you think the judges were ready to put crown ahead of Cavies (yet) even though most of DCP prolly thinks they should have? Nope. Not their turn. Yet. It's building. They're earning street cred. Now they have to be EVEN BETTER next year, JUST TO REMAIN IN 4th PLACE, trust me. Oh, and they have to hope everyone else gunning sucks a little.

you also said: "Phantom did it this year, and that's great. It has nothing to do with competitive inertia."

Phantom proves CI, with their performances at Finals this year. It was a full-stadium effort, b/c PR would NOT have done it, had the audience not DEMANDED it. The fact that PR had won before, and had many years of success ALLOWED the judges the mental freedom to let it happen. Had Crown been in the exact same position as PR, IT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. Oh, and the judges finally realized that the product BD had out there was akin to Cadets: Amazingly performed cute garbage (IMO )

you also said: "I'm sorry, but 1988 Scouts thwart the whole competitive inertia theory in a single blow."

Umm, they won before, and they goot HUGE brownie pts in 1988 with that trip overseas, and a few other things. Almost everyone agrees SCV should've won that show. Judges made up for the error in 1989 (when everyone agrees PR shoul've won!) Madison had all kinds of built-in, insider CI in 1988. It's the only explanation for their win that year. I was there, and I don't recall a thing about Madison's show, FWIW.

Keep trying!

[Bruckner8]

The argument of CI is plain wrong because of it's main conclusion:

"The main conclusion of CI is "No corps can win without first coming in 2nd or 3rd in a prior year."

This is an absolute statement, and says nothing about chance or likelihood.

To be mathematically honest (I do have a degree in Math, after all!), I'd have to concede that EVERY COPRS HAS A DEFINED CHANCE OF WINNING. But, as I've said before, our current technology might not be able to calculate it for a corps like, say Troopers. It would take scientific notation: "Troopers have 1.6 X 10^-1000 percent chance"

I think it's close enough to zero, to call it zero for our purposes, don't you?

you said: "Are you going to sit there and honestly tell me that Crown or Bluecoats or any other corps have a 0% chance of winning if they have never finished in the top 3?"

YES. I will stand by that, if yet let me call 1.6 X 10^-1000 ZERO.

you said "I would definitely agree that their chance is lower because of history, but it being 0% is ridiculous."

Mathemtically inconsistent, yes; ridiculous, no. One thing I have that math doesn't is heart and soul, just like the judges. I'm telling you, in the current environment, those corps have ZERO chance at a title until they get 2nd or 3rd. I have 36 years of proof.

you said: "Does Vanguard or Madison Scouts have a better shot at winning next year than Crown?"

If I believe CI, I'd have to say YES! duh!

[OICMR corps]

you said: "Does Vanguard or Madison Scouts have a better shot at winning next year than Crown?"

If I believe CI, I'd have to say YES! duh!

I'm going to give you another chance on this one because I'm on your side and believe in CI.

I do not get from your theory that SCV and MS have a better chance at winning WITH THE LEVEL OF SHOWS THEY HAD THIS YEAR. If they have a show at an equal level to CC and the three are in 1-3 places THEN SCV and MS are more likely to win. Correct?