Bluecoats

[Lance]

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 ...

Yeah, I think they stand a chance of pulling a 2007 again. Love the show this year just like 2007, though.

[rayfallon]

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 ...

Good post - can't argue with facts - I assume the "bad rap" of peaking too early goes way back to the '80s and early '90s when the corps seemed to come out like gang-busters with shows somewhat less demand laden than the top tier and faded down the stretch when everyone was performing better. I doubt the corps ever faded - just that corps caught up to the big band pop style shows with more sophisticated programs that took longer to clean. As you point out, that seems to be a thing of the past. Nothing like facts to screw up a good assumption!

[perc2100]

Good post - can't argue with facts - I assume the "bad rap" of peaking too early goes way back to the '80s and early '90s when the corps seemed to come out like gang-busters with shows somewhat less demand laden than the top tier and faded down the stretch when everyone was performing better. I doubt the corps ever faded - just that corps caught up to the big band pop style shows with more sophisticated programs that took longer to clean. As you point out, that seems to be a thing of the past. Nothing like facts to screw up a good assumption!

I think the "choke" factor (or peaking too early, or whatever) is more about some fans confident Bluecoats will be Top 3 based on early July scores, and other predictions that Bluecoats will not be Top 3 based on the fact that Bluecoats have never placed in the Top 3 at Finals. I think just as many people had a "wait and see" attitude about Crown placing Top 3 until they actually came in 2nd at Finals last year. If Bluecoats can actually maintain their Top 3-esque competitive success and finally achieve a final placement that meets expectations.

I personally like this year's Bluecoats show better than any of their past shows and would love to see them be Ohio's first Top 3 corps. We'll see what the next month holds

[Maestro1]

In 2007, there was no choke factor...Bluecoats were in SCV land!

Also, although people seem to remember Bluecoats in 7th place,

they fail to remember that 5th, 6th and 7th place were a mere .125

apart in score: SCV 94.175, Crown 94.150, Bluecoats 94.050.

I find that the judging community failed to distinguish a clear winner

among these three corps this particular year, or the spread would have

been much wider. In essence, Bluecoats could have been in the 5th spot

in 2007 very easily.

Give 'em an opportunity to prove themselves this year. Regardless where

they end up in score, they're a great group and among the most entertaining

corps on the field this year. I can't stand corps bashers. Respect the game.

GO BLOOOOOO!

[MDetch]

I may be a complete "honk" but I do believe that the bluecoats do have a shot at the top 3 this year... maybe even a championship.

Looking back on the corp's history, BlueR36, is 100% right about peaking at the right time. In the 3 years I marched with the corps, we were never in the same place at the end of finals that we were in quarters.

I'm just glad the show has an "edge" this year. I won't go as far as to say 2009's show "stunk" but I will admit that I haven't liked the attitude of the corps or the theme of the show this much since 2007.

I think it gets back to a lot of the controversy on this board. A lot of the "artsy," "cerebral," concepts the bluecoats have tried in the past, just don't appeal to me, and honestly, I don't think as a performer I could get too excited about concepts like 2009.

This show seems different (yet familiar) to me. It's the same bluecoats feeling, that was there in 2005 and 2007. It looks like a fun show to perform, and thats where I think it's going to move forward. This is a concept that people can understand, the performers can get excited about, and comes off as entertaining. Not a bunch of crap about some artist just about no one's ever heard of (2009) or some storyline that has to be explained with a microphone and actors (2008). (unfortunately they're still using synth and autotune... maybe we can fix that another season)

[perc2100]

This show seems different (yet familiar) to me. It's the same bluecoats feeling, that was there in 2005 and 2007. It looks like a fun show to perform, and thats where I think it's going to move forward. This is a concept that people can understand, the performers can get excited about, and comes off as entertaining.

While I'm not buying into the 2010 Champions aspirations yet (or Top 3), I agree with you about this year's show being better/more appealing than the last couple of years. I like this more than their past couple of years, and I think it has more potential than any of their shows since 2006. Only time will tell if Bluecoats have the juice to compete for Top 3, but they at least have the best product they've had in awhile

[perc2100]

In 2007, there was no choke factor...Bluecoats were in SCV land!

Also, although people seem to remember Bluecoats in 7th place,

they fail to remember that 5th, 6th and 7th place were a mere .125

apart in score: SCV 94.175, Crown 94.150, Bluecoats 94.050.

I find that the judging community failed to distinguish a clear winner

among these three corps this particular year, or the spread would have

been much wider. In essence, Bluecoats could have been in the 5th spot

in 2007 very easily.

Give 'em an opportunity to prove themselves this year. Regardless where

they end up in score, they're a great group and among the most entertaining

corps on the field this year. I can't stand corps bashers. Respect the game.

GO BLOOOOOO!

I think that's a little bit of a cop-out: more honestly, Bluecoats, Crown, and SCV were all VERY equal in design and execution. SCV's visual advantage barely put them ahead of Bluecoats (and to a less extent Crown's) musical advantage. If Bluecoats had a better visual design and visual performance, they likely would've been Top 4: if Bluecoats 07 has a visual program to match their musical program, they would've legitimately contended for the title. I think the judges were pretty loud and clear with their caption evaluation that year (SCV being well ahead of Bluecoats in vis, Bluecoats being well ahead of SCV in music), but when the raw score was added up the numbers came out close.

I agree that regardless Bluecoats have a good corps/show this year. Good enough for Top 3, though? We'll see (imagine how cool it would be if DCI had a new Champion AND a new Top 3 corps)

[soccerguy315]

I find that the judging community failed to distinguish a clear winner

among these three corps this particular year, or the spread would have

been much wider.

do you also think the judges failed to distinguish a clear winner in 2008?

just curious.

[RobG]

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.

2009:

Good corps, bad show. That simple.

Do you let a (slotted) score tell you what is good? I don't.

Edited July 11, 2010 by RobG

[THeShadeOfNight]

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.

Do you think before you write something? Or should I ask what time last year you first hopped into Drum Corps?

In previous years I would say that Bloo has done shows that are above their heads starting out. Watch 08 finals (this should be my prime example. This year the corps started off being beaten visually by glassmen, blue knights, almost crossmen and lower because the show was so over their head before the rewrite). Last year was a steady sixth place show the whole season because they were ok-ish. And these are FINALS. They climb and perform shows of a high caliber just like any other corps out there. Just because they make it look easy, doesn't mean it is