What was the term? Competitive Inertia?

[gellio]

I think the 1987-1989 Scouts completely debunked this competitive inertia theory. The corps was coming off a narrow 6th place finish in 1987 (a few tenths from being 8th), 7th in 1986, since 1976 they had only been in the top 3 once (1981) and the top 4 three times(1978, 1981 and 1985). Hardly cometitive inertia. I would venture to say that no one in their right mind would have every thought we would have won prior to the start of the 1988 season, or even late into the 1988 season. We had ZERO "competitive inertia". What we had was a solid program, a great staff, an excellent design and a talent corps. 1989, we did not have all those things. IMO the program was lacking in design - the corps was talented, the staff was good.... it just didn't work. Had we had "competitive inertia" we should have then finished 4th (I thought the top 3 that year were far above those beneath them). We finished 7th.

Corps success depends on experience, staff, design and talent. That is why corps move up and down the ladder, or stay where they are. Let's look facts in the face - people are competitive by nature. We want to win. It is a different world today. Back in the 70's a lot of people were local (a lot were in our '88 corps). Nowadays, it is different. People can and do march with top tier corps because not only do they want to be the best they can be, they want to win.

Do I think Bluecoats will win this year? No. But, they do have one heck of a show, so who knows.

I think the "proof" for competitive inertia is explained by the simple fact that it is harder to move up in the ranks than it is to fall down. Crown has been doing EVERYTHING right since the 2006 season (and before) - that is why they are now in a position to challenge for a title. Not because they finished 2nd last year.

Edited June 30, 2010 by gellio

[contrajedi8]

I think the 1987-1989 Scouts completely debunked this competitive inertia theory. The corps was coming off a narrow 6th place finish in 1987 (a few tenths from being 8th), 7th in 1986, since 1976 they had only been in the top 3 once (1981) and the top 4 three times(1978, 1981 and 1985). Hardly cometitive inertia. I would venture to say that no one in their right mind would have every thought we would have won prior to the start of the 1988 season, or even late into the 1988 season. We had ZERO "competitive inertia". What we had was a solid program, a great staff, an excellent design and a talent corps. 1989, we did not have all those things. IMO the program was lacking in design - the corps was talented, the staff was good.... it just didn't work. Had we had "competitive inertia" we should have then finished 4th (I thought the top 3 that year were far above those beneath them). We finished 7th.

Corps success depends on experience, staff, design and talent. That is why corps move up and down the ladder, or stay where they are. Let's look facts in the face - people are competitive by nature. We want to win. It is a different world today. Back in the 70's a lot of people were local (a lot were in our '88 corps). Nowadays, it is different. People can and do march with top tier corps because not only do they want to be the best they can be, they want to win.

Do I think Bluecoats will win this year? No. But, they do have one heck of a show, so who knows.

I think the "proof" for competitive inertia is explained by the simple fact that it is harder to move up in the ranks than it is to fall down. Crown has been doing EVERYTHING right since the 2006 season (and before) - that is why they are now in a position to challenge for a title. Not because they finished 2nd last year.

You need to go back and re-read the CI paper. You completely missed a few big points. Yeah, Madison was good in 88 but they had a lot of history on their side.

[MikeN]

I did a search - I've actually charted this out in '07 and '08, using the criteria "how often did a corps escape their final placement?" In other words, how many times during the season did a particular corps either beat a group that finished ahead of them during Finals week, or lose to someone that eventually finished under them. In theory, a high instance of that happening should indicate corps on the move either up or down in rank during the season, while a low number of occurrences would signal static ranks.

I'll not bore you with the full results, but in 2008 corps can be evaluated "head-to-head" 1,881 times. Of those, 122 (6%) would be considered "upsets" and a full quarter of those came from Blue Stars and Phantom Regiment. In 2007, out of 2,183 head-to-head matchups, upsets occured 166 times (7%), a third of which same from the 5-6-7 of SCV-Bluecoats-Crown, who traded places throughout the season.

Also, the following corps had 3 instances or less of deviations from their final placement over the entire season.

2008 Bluecoats, SCV, Troopers, Academy, Mandarins, Pioneer; 2007 Phantom Regiment, Blue Knights, Boston Crusaders, Mandarins and Pioneer.

I guess my point is that rather than across seasons, there's incredibly little movement captured within a season.

Mike

[BigPapiBass5]

1. Its still June.

2. Harders shows take longer to clean. Right now bluecoats have cleaned there show and could repeat the 2007. Phantom has what they want out there but its dirty. Cadets have started to clean and their score has shot up.

[Bruckner8]

I think the 1987-1989 Scouts completely debunked this competitive inertia theory. The corps was coming off a narrow 6th place finish in 1987 (a few tenths from being 8th), 7th in 1986, since 1976 they had only been in the top 3 once (1981) and the top 4 three times(1978, 1981 and 1985). Hardly cometitive inertia. I would venture to say that no one in their right mind would have every thought we would have won prior to the start of the 1988 season, or even late into the 1988 season. We had ZERO "competitive inertia". What we had was a solid program, a great staff, an excellent design and a talent corps. 1989, we did not have all those things. IMO the program was lacking in design - the corps was talented, the staff was good.... it just didn't work. Had we had "competitive inertia" we should have then finished 4th (I thought the top 3 that year were far above those beneath them). We finished 7th.

Corps success depends on experience, staff, design and talent. That is why corps move up and down the ladder, or stay where they are. Let's look facts in the face - people are competitive by nature. We want to win. It is a different world today. Back in the 70's a lot of people were local (a lot were in our '88 corps). Nowadays, it is different. People can and do march with top tier corps because not only do they want to be the best they can be, they want to win.

Do I think Bluecoats will win this year? No. But, they do have one heck of a show, so who knows.

I think the "proof" for competitive inertia is explained by the simple fact that it is harder to move up in the ranks than it is to fall down. Crown has been doing EVERYTHING right since the 2006 season (and before) - that is why they are now in a position to challenge for a title. Not because they finished 2nd last year.

Gellio, we've had this discussion before, but I'll take the bait, just in case any new-comers to this are interested. Let me take each error in turn:

"I think the 1987-1989 Scouts completely debunked this competitive inertia theory."

Scouts already won in 1975, and had a few other Top 3 finishes. Inertia established, as defined in the original article.

"I would venture to say that no one in their right mind would have every thought we would have won prior to the start of the 1988 season, or even late into the 1988 season. "

You're right. And most people that attended 1988 Finals would agree, except former Scouts members and Scouts homers. Almost everyone else is in agreement SCV should've won that show. Going to Europe in 1988 [just going...forget about any rehearsal advantage it may have had], along with the fact that it was Madison's 50th anniversary year, added to the CI [tug the heart strings, mystique] in a big way. I don't blame you for telling yourself that you were awesome and deserved it...I'm sure I would too! Congratulations on your win in 1988. No one can take it away from you.

"Had we had "competitive inertia" we should have then finished 4th (I thought the top 3 that year were far above those beneath them). We finished 7th."

CI aims to explain why judges make the decisions they do WHEN IT'S CLOSE, in relation to corps that have already been there. It's a lot easier to hand the title (or the placement) to a corps that's already been there than to give it to someone new. We'd have to look at the people in 6-7-8 places that year to assign any CI to your placement, since the title was out of the picture on Day One.

"Do I think Bluecoats will win this year? No. But, they do have one heck of a show, so who knows. "

CI prevents them from winning, period, and I'm a Bloo homer. I'd love to be wrong on this, and if I am, I'll come back here and post an official retraction of CI, with you as my guiding light and savior. They have a legit shot at 2nd or 3rd, however.

"I think the "proof" for competitive inertia is explained by the simple fact that it is harder to move up in the ranks than it is to fall down. "

Now we're getting somewhere...have you eve asked yourself WHY IT'S HARDER? What exactly makes it harder, and why do you feel that way? I mean, you were even careful to say "move up" and not say "to win." I AGREE WITH YOU! And so does CI...at least I've done the work, and then proposed the WHY. I have yet to see an alternative theory. It's hard to provide alternative theories, however, when an existing theory has not been falsified!

"Crown has been doing EVERYTHING right since the 2006 season (and before) - that is why they are now in a position to challenge for a title. Not because they finished 2nd last year."

Do you think they should've beaten BD last year? If the answer is YES, then you HAVE to be a believer in CI! if the answer is NO, you don't have to be a believer, but it doesn't debunk CI...it still strengthens it.

I know 1988 Madison holds dear. I know you want it to be remembered as "We came out of nowhere, and kicked everyone's ###" kind of show. I'm happy for you. Whether you like to admit or not, you had plenty of CI, and it was more responsible for that win than anything else. 1988 is the epitome of CI gone bad, cuz it wasn't even that close.

[DAvery]

Scouts already won in 1975, and had a few other Top 3 finishes. Inertia established, as defined in the original article.

So you are saying that if the Kingsmen or 27th reappeared next year they would already have the inertia to enable them to win DCI?.

[bluecoats88]

1. Its still June.

2. Harders shows take longer to clean. Right now bluecoats have cleaned there show and could repeat the 2007. Phantom has what they want out there but its dirty. Cadets have started to clean and their score has shot up.

Bluecoats are anything but clean right now, and they have many sections in their show which will be changed throughout the season. They have a demanding show and are performing it at the level they should be performing it in June in order to be one of the top groups. As the season progresses they will clean what they have and change sections in order to keep pace with the top groups and hopefully stay ahead of the groups they've already beaten. In 2007 they didn't have as challenging or cohesive a drill and their guard demand and execution were not quite up to the level of this years. This is why I believe the comparisons to 2007 are not really relevant, and I loved the 2007 show, but from a design and demand standpoint, this years show is well above the 2007 show.

[kdaddy]

1. We need Stuart Rice to organize a symposium on this.

2. Have you looked at drawing parallels to this theory in other subjectively judged events? (haven't looked at the original post, so forgive me if it's there)

[kevingamin]

So you are saying that if the Kingsmen or 27th reappeared next year they would already have the inertia to enable them to win DCI?.

All Competitive Inertia says is that a corps has to "prove itself" by placing in the Top 3 at least once in it's DCI history before it can win the title.

It does not say that any corps which has placed in the Top 3 in the past can win REGARDLESS OF THEIR PERFORMANCE LEVEL.

If Kingsmen or 2-7 came back next year AND performed at such a level that they were contenders, the judges would, at some level, take their past success into consideration IF ALL OTHER THINGS WERE EQUAL (ex. BD and 2-7 perform at such high quality that it's hard to distinguish who the better corps is).

If Bluecoats this year performs at such a level that they are contenders (which, personally, I believe they do and are), the judges would, at some level, take their lack of past Championship success (i.e. never been in Top 3) into consideration IF ALL OTHER THINGS WERE EQUAL (ex. BD and Bloo perform at such high quality that it's hard to distinguish who the better corps is)

[kevingamin]

I think a better term for this theory would be Competitive Reputation. If the top two corps at Finals perform so well that the judges have a hard time picking which corps is better, they'll give the edge to the corps with the better Competitive Reputation. If one of those corps have never broken into the Top 3, while the other has, the judges are going to lean towards the corps with the better reputation.