BlueR36 Posted July 11, 2010 Share Posted July 11, 2010 As the Bluecoats prove themselves to be "contenders" early this season, people seem to like to point out 2007 when the Bluecoats were scoring high early in the season -- including, at one show, beating Blue Devils for the only time in their history and the Cavaliers for the first time in 19 years -- and then "peaking too early" and "falling" all the way to seventh at Finals, after taking fourth at Finals in 2006. Some facts ... In 2006, the Bluecoats (93.175) took 4th, finishing 4.025 behind first and 8.35 ahead of 12th. In 2007, the Bluecoats (95.05) took 7th, finishing 3.95 behind first and 9.55 ahead of 12th. That's right -- despite taking three spots lower, they actually scored higher, were closer to first and were further away from 12th. This was partially because the 4th-5th-6th-7th corps in 2007 were separated by a mere 0.8 points, and amazingly tight race and they just happened to finish on the bottom. Those are the facts. You can turn them into "peaking" and "falling" ... or ... you can turn them into 2007 actually being a slightly better year for them despite placing lower. But, everyone now-a-days likes to point out 2007 as a year the Bluecoats "peaked early" before "falling" back and not contending like it looked like they were going to. My point is that was ONE season where that opinion might arguably be true, despite the facts pointing slightly away from that opinion. But why does everyone "forget" that the Bluecoats also have a history of peaking at EXACTLY the right time? Since missing Finals in 1999 and returning in 2000, the Bluecoats have "moved up" during Finals week or the last week of the season six times ... falling in placement just once (maybe twice). In 2001, Bluecoats lost to Boston in Massillon, Ohio (Bluecoats home show), six days before Finals, then beat Boston all three shows during Finals week. In 2002, Bluecoats were tied with Glassmen in semi's, then beat them in Finals. In 2004, Bluecoats took seventh in semifinals, then jumped over CCrown in Finals. In 2005, Bluecoats were behind Madison in quarters, tied them in semi's, and beat them in Finals. In 2006, Bluecoats took sixth in semi's, then jumped both Cadets and SCV in Finals. In 2008, Bluecoats took seventh in semi's, then jumped SCV in Finals. So yes, the 2007 Bluecoats did fall behind SCV from the week before Finals to all three shows during Finals week ... and in 2002, the Bluecoats were ahead of Boston in quarters before Boston jumped Bluecoats, Glassmen and into a tie with Phantom at Finals (they did both "fall" and "jump" that season). So ... why do so many insist on remembering and pointing out one year (2007) and not the other SIX YEARS?????? ... just curious ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bawker Posted July 11, 2010 Share Posted July 11, 2010 So ... why do so many insist on remembering and pointing out one year (2007) and not the other SIX YEARS?????? Simple. The pieces have supposedly been in place for a number of years to make the top three, but it's yet to occur. 2007 seemed like it was their time, but finishing in 7th after beating BD/Cavaliers makes more of a lasting impression . . .until they're able to start staying with the regular "top three" all season and through to Finals. Nothing more, nothing less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rd Glasgow BB Posted July 11, 2010 Share Posted July 11, 2010 Pretty much what he said. Memorable moments can be highs or lows. Take Phantom for example, they could finish 12th for the next 3 years but in 10 years time all folk will remember is Spartacus. Make top 3 and 2007 will be forgotten about Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGarrett Posted July 11, 2010 Share Posted July 11, 2010 (edited) Good stats to illustrate the point. I will once again (seems year after year I make this same point...) point out that if a year to year comparison of scoring, and a strong analysis of show content, demand, continuity, performance and cleanliness was to be completed comprehensively by a bilateral and independent panel of each corps shows every year... done specifically at a good month to month or biweekly separating timeframe to specifically show cleaning and added in elements as the season goes on... that kind of research would point out the flaws of the current judging system, and how it always winds up inexplicably leaving a corps or several corps being suspiciously "placed" into a placement as opposed to earning it, or falling in to it from where they were say two weeks prior. Like the baseball umpire who made a horrifically bad call and cost a pitcher a well-earned perfect game earlier this season... drum corps judges can easily cost a corps a well deserved placement at the semi's or Finals show by simply making one bad judgement call as well. (edit: I would like to actually make his point in the more appropriate thread going on "Misdirected Hostility" scoring and judging. I will leave this here, but copy and paste into the other thread as well.) Edited July 11, 2010 by GGarrett Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobG Posted July 11, 2010 Share Posted July 11, 2010 It seems to me that the Bluecoats "peak early" (not the term I would use, thus the quotes) for the following reasons: 1) They have a conservative approach. They play it safe and come out with a show that is a little easier than it ought to be because they want to look good out of the gate. Some other corps come out looking kind of sloppy but as they clean up the show they pass Bluecoats. 2) The Bluecoats last two shows before this year have just not been that good - last year's show just flat-out stunk. A good corps can only do so much with bad material. It looks to me like the Bluecoats put everything together just right this season. They look better than ever and have an outside chance at making #1. I look forward tothe next time I see them in Massilon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soccerguy315 Posted July 11, 2010 Share Posted July 11, 2010 because the other 6 years they didn't make top 3 either... people point to 2007 because that is the year it LOOKED like they were on the way, but... the rest is history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldbandguy Posted July 11, 2010 Share Posted July 11, 2010 2) The Bluecoats last two shows before this year have just not been that good - last year's show just flat-out stunk. A good corps can only do so much with bad material. Stunk all the way to a 93+ and 6th place...they should hang their heads in shame. I'm curious...how many shows last year, in your opinion, did NOT stink? I also love how some folks can say a show that scored 95+ (07) "can be forgotten" if they win the championship this year. I hope all of you, in whatever you do, can live up to the standards you seem to want to place on the Bluecoats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShortAndFast Posted July 11, 2010 Share Posted July 11, 2010 I thought the conclusion about 'coats 07 was that they watered the book too much, and didn't have enough left to max out during finals week. That sounds more like a bad call by the staff then it does an inability to design shows that go the distance. I'm sure they learned something from the experience. They probably have more changes to make to Metropolis, and they have tons more to clean. Time enough to worry about "peaking too soon" when that's all taken care of! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted July 11, 2010 Share Posted July 11, 2010 As the Bluecoats prove themselves to be "contenders" early this season, people seem to like to point out 2007 when the Bluecoats were scoring high early in the season -- including, at one show, beating Blue Devils for the only time in their history and the Cavaliers for the first time in 19 years -- and then "peaking too early" and "falling" all the way to seventh at Finals, after taking fourth at Finals in 2006.Some facts ... In 2006, the Bluecoats (93.175) took 4th, finishing 4.025 behind first and 8.35 ahead of 12th. In 2007, the Bluecoats (95.05) took 7th, finishing 3.95 behind first and 9.55 ahead of 12th. That's right -- despite taking three spots lower, they actually scored higher, were closer to first and were further away from 12th. This was partially because the 4th-5th-6th-7th corps in 2007 were separated by a mere 0.8 points, and amazingly tight race and they just happened to finish on the bottom. Those are the facts. You can turn them into "peaking" and "falling" ... or ... you can turn them into 2007 actually being a slightly better year for them despite placing lower. But, everyone now-a-days likes to point out 2007 as a year the Bluecoats "peaked early" before "falling" back and not contending like it looked like they were going to. My point is that was ONE season where that opinion might arguably be true, despite the facts pointing slightly away from that opinion. But why does everyone "forget" that the Bluecoats also have a history of peaking at EXACTLY the right time? Since missing Finals in 1999 and returning in 2000, the Bluecoats have "moved up" during Finals week or the last week of the season six times ... falling in placement just once (maybe twice). In 2001, Bluecoats lost to Boston in Massillon, Ohio (Bluecoats home show), six days before Finals, then beat Boston all three shows during Finals week. In 2002, Bluecoats were tied with Glassmen in semi's, then beat them in Finals. In 2004, Bluecoats took seventh in semifinals, then jumped over CCrown in Finals. In 2005, Bluecoats were behind Madison in quarters, tied them in semi's, and beat them in Finals. In 2006, Bluecoats took sixth in semi's, then jumped both Cadets and SCV in Finals. In 2008, Bluecoats took seventh in semi's, then jumped SCV in Finals. So yes, the 2007 Bluecoats did fall behind SCV from the week before Finals to all three shows during Finals week ... and in 2002, the Bluecoats were ahead of Boston in quarters before Boston jumped Bluecoats, Glassmen and into a tie with Phantom at Finals (they did both "fall" and "jump" that season). So ... why do so many insist on remembering and pointing out one year (2007) and not the other SIX YEARS?????? ... just curious ... I think the Bluecoat faithful are clinging to HOPE that they will (for the first time EVER) finish the season in the Top 3 and cement Bluecoats as a true contender. The more realistic armchair DCI analysts understand that Bluecoats have NEVER finished in the Top 3, and probably prefer to wait for Bluecoats to "show us the money" and back up their ambition with the necessary execution and tweaks to achieve Top 3. NO ONE is disputing that Bluecoats have been a consistently strong corps the last several seasons. Cavaliers, Blue Devils, and Cadets have a long history of doing what is necessary to consistently place in the Top 3 the past ten seasons. Crown proved last season they have what it takes to legitimately contend for Champion and win captions when it counts (finals night). Bluecoats have shown they have what it takes to consistently place in the Top 6, but have NOT proven they have what it takes to be Top 3. Until they actually place in the Top 3 many people won't give them the benefit of the doubt: Bluecoats will need to earn that by actually Finishing Top 3 on Finals night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted July 11, 2010 Share Posted July 11, 2010 (edited) because the other 6 years they didn't make top 3 either...people point to 2007 because that is the year it LOOKED like they were on the way, but... the rest is history. True; most average drum corps fans don't think about "remember how awesome it was when Bluecoats beat Blue Devils and Cavaliers once or twice in the middle of the 07 season?" Instead they choose to judge competitive success by the final placement for the year. Bluecoats haven't been able to beat the top corps when it mattered, and have arguably underachieved at times (like 2007). Edited July 11, 2010 by perc2100 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.