2009 Could be Carolina Crown's year

[ShortAndFast]

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).

Of course you can, but then, a theory that has to be tweaked every time a new data point comes in probably wasn't very sound to begin with. Your prediction (corps that have not previously placed in the top 3 will not win) will work until it doesn't, just like the theory that the semis winner always wins at finals or the theory that the conference of the Super Bowl winner predicts the outcome of presidental elections.

Since you haven't explained any mechanism by which Crown's 4th place finish would prevent 11 judges from giving them numbers that, when combined, leave them in 1st, you haven't given us any reason to think that your theory is making meaningful predictions about future outcomes. It's just dumb luck that things have turned out that way so far.

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?

A spread of 0.1 does not mean "obviously better". It means the judge thought the two groups were about the same and made a judgment call as to which one was better. So if your theory is correct, why did that judgment call come out in favor of the newbie rather than the corps that has competitively dominated this entire decade?

There may be people who think Crown was No 1 in brass, but they aren't named Paul McGarr and they weren't standing on the field finals night. Since Paul gave them 2nd in rep, but 5th in technique I'd assume the reason they didn't place higher was that he felt their on-the-field performance left something to be desired.

[Bruckner8]

Of course you can, but then, a theory that has to be tweaked every time a new data point comes in probably wasn't very sound to begin with.

Umm, you must not follow real science too much. The entire history of science is:

1) Observe

2) Hypothesis (make a theory)

3) Test (and back-test if possible)

4) Refine

(repeat)

I don't pretend that observing patterns in drum corps placement is pure science, but I do take pride in using sound scientific and mathematic/logic principles when posting my thoughts here. The entire medical/insurance industry is based on data-collection and prediction. Our premiums change based on new data coming to light. There was a time when people were convinced that the Sun revolved around the Earth too. After all, the sun "rises" in the east and "sets" in the West, every freakin' day. Everyone can see that, right? Luckily, scientists collected more data and refined (learned) more insight into the true working.

It's just dumb luck that things have turned out that way so far.

Certainly a possibility. I tried to explain why that is in the main post. Do you have a counter to my original reasoning? I know it's much easier to dismiss a theory, than to try to come up with alternatives.

You said: "A spread of 0.1 does not mean "obviously better"." Au contraire. If you read the original, and understood CI to its fullest, you'd conclude that Crown was probably WAY MORE than 0.1 better. The fact that the judge put their rank above the other corps at all SAYS EVERYTHING. (prolly should've been a wider spread!)

[Bailey]

I really hope it is. They have the momentum (8th, 6th, 4th...), they have the staff, and they will definitely have the talent to choose from this fall. Competitive inertia is a cool way of making sense of and semi-predicting who can/will win a championship out of the relatively small amount of data (if you only look at finals placements in DCI history)...but I really don't look at drum corps placement in a scientific way. Judging by just my instinct...It's a toss-up between The Holy Name Cadets, Carolina Crown, and Phantom. But I'm sure anyone could have guessed those names...I'm not quite sure of the Cavies or BD yet, once I see their show titles/themes and musical selections I'll make a prediction about them.

[mellodramatic]

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?

Funny thing is that Crown was winning brass in Allentown by .2 over anybody else, with the same judges both nights. Come quarters, they were down .4 out of first place in brass. And the judge that gave them that score was the same one that put the Bluecoats 4th in brass at finals in 07.

Edited September 3, 2008 by mellodramatic

[salad315]

Funny thing is that Crown was winning brass in Allentown by .2 over anybody else, with the same judges both nights. Come quarters, they were down .4 out of first place in brass. And the judge that gave them that score was the same one that put the Bluecoats 4th in brass (I could swear it was 5th though) at quarters in 07.

Pretty sure bloo won brass at quarters last year....

[Coathope]

Pretty sure bloo won brass at quarters last year....

Correct

[HashBrownJM]

Funny thing is that Crown was winning brass in Allentown by .2 over anybody else, with the same judges both nights. Come quarters, they were down .4 out of first place in brass. And the judge that gave them that score was the same one that put the Bluecoats 4th in brass (I could swear it was 5th though) at quarters in 07.

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

[Tez]

Umm, you must not follow real science too much. The entire history of science is:

1) Observe

2) Hypothesis (make a theory)

3) Test (and back-test if possible)

4) Refine

(repeat)

I don't pretend that observing patterns in drum corps placement is pure science, but I do take pride in using sound scientific and mathematic/logic principles when posting my thoughts here. The entire medical/insurance industry is based on data-collection and prediction. Our premiums change based on new data coming to light. There was a time when people were convinced that the Sun revolved around the Earth too. After all, the sun "rises" in the east and "sets" in the West, every freakin' day. Everyone can see that, right? Luckily, scientists collected more data and refined (learned) more insight into the true working.

Certainly a possibility. I tried to explain why that is in the main post. Do you have a counter to my original reasoning? I know it's much easier to dismiss a theory, than to try to come up with alternatives.

You said: "A spread of 0.1 does not mean "obviously better"." Au contraire. If you read the original, and understood CI to its fullest, you'd conclude that Crown was probably WAY MORE than 0.1 better. The fact that the judge put their rank above the other corps at all SAYS EVERYTHING. (prolly should've been a wider spread!)

So really this comes down to you having no faith in the judges. Why would a judge want the same corps that have won over and over to keep winning? Are they not human like us and generally 'root' for the underdog? If anything, I would think they would have a sub-concious lean toward the new-comer if nothing more than to make the activity more exciting...... Or maybe they are just calling it like they see it and give the exact score they think the corps deserve. Crown beating the Cavies in brass by a slim margin does not prove your point at all. It is not like you "know" that Crown was far superior or anything. I highly doubt that anyone on these message boards could make any kind of valid claim between these two as they never experienced their shows from the brass judge's persective. In the judge's mind, Crown was just slightly better. It's as simple as that. Do you really think DCI would invite people to adjudicate their World Championships that weren't highly qualified in their specific caption? Competitive Inertia as a theory is totally fine. But another poster has stated that CI 'proves' that Crown basically has no chance of winning next year. That.... is still ridiculous. CI may state that their chance of winning is smaller than some other corps (which it probably is).... but there is no way that it is impossible. All they have to be is better in the minds of the judges. (not a whole lot better, just better)

[Bruckner8]

So really this comes down to you having no faith in the judges.

Another poster who hasn't read all of the OP to CI. I explicity claim that the judges aren't at fault. I explicitly state that I don't blame them at all, for the incredibly difficult task at hand.

But anyway...

Edited September 2, 2008 by Bruckner8

[ShortAndFast]

Certainly a possibility. I tried to explain why that is in the main post. Do you have a counter to my original reasoning? I know it's much easier to dismiss a theory, than to try to come up with alternatives.

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.

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.

You said: "A spread of 0.1 does not mean "obviously better"." Au contraire. If you read the original, and understood CI to its fullest, you'd conclude that Crown was probably WAY MORE than 0.1 better. The fact that the judge put their rank above the other corps at all SAYS EVERYTHING. (prolly should've been a wider spread!)

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.