Rule Proposals

[la mejor]

So what do we think about the Rule Proposals that will be presented at the upcoming Advisory Meeting?

Seems to me that we are battling with wanting assurance and wanting everyone to get a chance...

Lots of proposals returning to some sort of double panel to ensure no one judge makes a difference, while on the other hand, others who want more random performance times, etc.

Also interesting to see proposals from judges...interesting prospective!

Would love to hear everyone's thoughts!

[Musical_Spinner]

The second to last one about splitting a class into two divisions based on large and small group is kind of ridiculous. The proposer says colleges have an unfair advantage compared to the rest of A class.

Thoughts? Anyone?

[wtxcg]

The second to last one about splitting a class into two divisions based on large and small group is kind of ridiculous. The proposer says colleges have an unfair advantage compared to the rest of A class.

Thoughts? Anyone?

Spoke with a college administrator friend of mine about this proposal. He said if WGI initiated a Collegiate-only division or class then his school would more and likely field a competitive winterguard and other schools would also. Otherwise, any groups that march which have his students as members must remain purely independent.

[ATXguard]

I do feel that collegiate groups have an unfair advantage in that they can often get free rehearsal facilities, are often funded by the college itself, student activity fees, and/or operating a guard class or classes (and yes, some colleges do this!) and obviously have a larger potential draw from marching band students. They are almost akin to scholastic units in this way-- however, it should be based on funding and recruiting, not on the size of the guard.

Also as WTXCG said, a separate college class might help recruit even more guards! I think it's a potential win-win situation for everyone.

As for the "divisions" based on the number of groups in a class- I don't agree with that. I've seen it in several circuits: In 14th place in the Red AAA group, in 14th place in the Purple AAA division, in 14th place in the Green AAA division...it's an attempt at a feel good situation, but someone still loses in each division. And I've seen guards get 4th place (or lower) in one division who would have won or placed 2nd in another division! Rank then Rate! That's what it should come down to! I haven't had a chance to look at the proposals yet. Hopefully later today.

BTW-- in case someone reads this before I get a chance to look-- was there a proposal again to eliminate the age-out for independent guards?

[Jeremy Denzer]

It looks like most of the proposals are around creating a more even playing field at championships.

Several proposals to bring back double panels at championships. I agree with this. With a single panel one judge has too much power in terms of the results.

Several proposals about how to determine order of appearance at championships. I agree with the idea of a random draw for prelims. The current method of placing groups in blocks based on regional scores promotes slotting. I see this as the biggest problem in the World class. Being placed in block 1 is like a death sentance.

An interesting proposal regarding unit promotions. I could see a system of promoting only during the current season working as long as WGI was aggressive enough and actually promoted units mid season.

[combia1]

I also like the idea of double panels. But not just for finals. This year more then ever, I thought there was a lot of pre-judging of units based on their "ranked" performance order in prelims.

I also like the idea of randomizing withing similar neighborhoods as the rounds progress.

However, I suspect WGI and/or judges will be against many of these proposals because it could reveal the inconsistency in judging.

If you took a panle of judges and isolated them for the entire season, and then had them judge finals with no announcements about who the gaurd was, I bet you would see VERY different results.

[Musical_Spinner]

Spoke with a college administrator friend of mine about this proposal. He said if WGI initiated a Collegiate-only division or class then his school would more and likely field a competitive winterguard and other schools would also. Otherwise, any groups that march which have his students as members must remain purely independent.

Good point!

Do we think WGI can do this in an upcoming season and make money in this economy?

[AustinStarsPAA]

Good point!

Do we think WGI can do this in an upcoming season and make money in this economy?

If it creates more units who are willing to spend the $ to attend regionals and potentially WGI Championships, then yes, I think they can and should at least consider it. Maybe do like they sometimes do and ask local circuits to try it out first (like with the digital recording) to see if it will work out.

I'd like to see how/if this has any impact on the numbers of guards and guard units--but potentially also for percussion units in the future, and if it will affect drumcorps in any way-- maybe people staying with their college group more than auditioning for corps (because of the economy)? Would it then create more demand for lifting age restrictions in independent classes since the prospect of losing members to the local college team could become a concern? etc...

[justgin]

So....it's pretty clear that everyone thinks a double panel is the way to prevent some of the crazy scoring issues that happened, huh? I always find it interesting to see what issues on any given year are the ones that will get several proposals for the same thing.

In the proposal about block scores (#7), I found this comment interesting and somewhat alarming... "When there is no “basis” for a score besides the box on the back of a sheet that has such a wide range, we will see scores range from one

regional on the same day as another be drastically different with similar ranked units." Should there really be a basis for scores OTHER than the boxes on the back of the sheets?? I agree that numbers from regional to regional were dramatically different for the same guards from week to week, but I don't think artificially mandating where people "should" be is necessarily the answer.

I'm DEFINITELY in favor of the proposal about drawing your "tie-breaker" number at check in (#14). Takes the ambiguity out of any situation involving a tie....no matter how many groups tie at a time.

I'm surprised at the one about randomly assigning Open Class guards instead of seeding them (#15). The seeding process should be different for just one class....how do you rationalize that?? On the other hand, the one about randomizing within neighborhoods is something I could definitely get behind (#16).

The proposals about double panels at Power Regionals make sense from a competitive standpoint, but the expense would likely be too much for the sponsors. The vast majority of the judges' fees, hotels, travel, etc. are covered by the show host, so that expense is being passed along to them. Remember, since there are already two panels in place for Power Regionals so the same panel isn't judging the whole thing, if you use double panels in each round, that's really 4 times the expenses of one single panel. With profit margins minimal at a lot of regionals as it is, it seems this would make sponsors very wary of hosting a Power Regional in their area.

Amen for #31!!!

#33........again.........why waive a rule for just one class?? If anything, it seems that World class groups would be the most prepared early on. They aren't teaching their kids to spin from scratch, and should have a pretty significant training base to start from. Also, the rationale that different areas start at different times.......that's all up to the director. If you know you've got a big trip and are going to an early regional, plan ahead to accomodate that. I don't have a problem with setting a lower time requirement for ALL classes at an early regional or two, but I still don't see why there would be different rules for different classes on this one.

Rules proposal about college age groups.......... With the new WGI policy that allows scholastic groups to have students from more than one school, it seems that would be an option for groups who don't want to compete against college kids. My group is mixed from both high school and college students, and I think it's presumptuous to assume that college students are always better than high school students. I also don't really see how divisions based on the number of members in the group would really affect anything. I guess I just don't get this one.

It will be interesting to see how things with all the proposals about the Advisory Board and Chief Judges pan out. It's pretty clear that this is a response to the sweeping changes that were put in place last year.

Maybe we should ask for the Advisory Board meetings to also be shown on Fan Network. Now THAT would be a way to keep everyone involved!!

Edited May 4, 2009 by justgin

[quegrawks]

I think Proposal 16 makes sense.. in terms of randomizing neighborhoods for performance at finals... in conjunction with the Proposal 14 tie-breaker idea of drawing random numbers...i think that would be a way to make it most fair, although I'm sure some people would state that "the best guard" or "highest scoring" guard from prelims should have the option of going on last at finals, especially the smaller regionals that may only have 2 or 3 in a class?

I think accepting these two would totally negate the concept of Propsal 15, which, as Ginger stated, seems unfair as it is only applied to one class.

Proposal 12... I understand how frustrating it must be to score higher than another guard that makes it on to the next round when you do not. However, is it realistic to assume that all scores could be documented accurately in a short time period to ensure that everyone knows what is going on? Would that then necessitate the posting of ALL scores at each site to ensure that no one has any questions about whether or not they make it to the next round?

My main problem with Proposal 42(?) regarding not letting college kids compete in IA... is that it really doesn't make rational sense. It seems more like an emotional response to situations that have occurred to this person and his/her guard. It's also not clearly written, so I can read about 10 different things into it. It almost seems like someone just writing a bunch of thoughts down, and perhaps trying to have 2 or 3 proposals in one.

I do wonder how the double panel might have affected some groups either positively or negatively from this past season. I can think of two cases where I saw a big discrepancy in number from one judge on a panel that either hurt or harmed a couple of the guards, and I think Proposals 27 and 28 both may have something to do with those situations. I think having a double panel at world championships finals makes sense, since almost all the judges are in attendance anyway. Not sure it would be financially viable for EVERY regional.

Finally, Proposal 21- YES! Why should these groups have to pay the same amount to attend a regional and not have the chance to possibly make finals? Either implement, or let regional A guards attend for 1/2 the price!