txpride Posted August 25, 2010 Author Share Posted August 25, 2010 Fan Network Yeah, that's true. I could go check it out. I haven't yet. Is it high cam? I assume it would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Not to dismiss your general point, though, which I agree with. If corps out of the top 10 or so aren't getting anywhere close to 150, then the limit is too high. This has been beat to death. There's no evidence to support that kids who audition at a top corps and are cut go on to fill out the ranks of lower ranked corps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txpride Posted August 25, 2010 Author Share Posted August 25, 2010 This has been beat to death. There's no evidence to support that kids who audition at a top corps and are cut go on to fill out the ranks of lower ranked corps. What's that got to do with anything the poster you replied to said? I didn't read anything that even gave referance to "kids being cut from upper level corps going to the lower ones". What are you even replying to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldsmith1210 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I don't think that it has been either successful or unsuccessful. It's not quantity that is going to be successful, but quality. A perfect example: the 1985 Troopers, a 90 member corps that placed 9th. A superior product will trump a humongous monster every time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CuriousMe Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 (edited) Incorrect. As clarified by my counts from yesterday (which can be tested under any level of scrutiny by various minute numbers on the 09 DVDs), Boston did not have the full 150 in 09. I don't care what their numbers were on paper, I don't care what the staff said. They can clearly be counted (in fact they were one of the easy ones I counted.)See my count post from yesterday. And as for what my point is. I'm really not harping on anyone for not having 150 or 80 brass or whatever. I'm simply pointing out statistical facts - which then should clarify my point. That being, that corps are struggling to meet the 150. Either that, or corps are making a choice not to march the full 150 (which I have no problem with). However, it begs the question (especially if corps ARE choosing not to march the full 150...is 150 a good number or should we go back just a little to maybe 140? That's all I'm getting at. And it sounds like you might be replying to my older posts on this thread. You really should check out my number counts from yesterday (Monday). This thread really tool a turn after I posted (and it was a turn for the better). So read on when you have a second. Statistics never call for clear action one way or another....interpretation of statistics do. I think what some are trying to say is that not everyone interprets the statistics provided as you are. I've seen no numbers that lead me to believe that 150 isn't working out. I've been in hornlines from 8 members to 80+ members. It was never a DCI regulation that impacted us filling a line. Edited August 25, 2010 by CuriousMe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txpride Posted August 25, 2010 Author Share Posted August 25, 2010 (edited) Statistics never call for clear action one way or another....interpretation of statistics do. I think what some are trying to say is that not everyone interprets the statistics provided as you are. I've seen no numbers that lead me to believe that 150 isn't working out.I've been in hornlines from 8 members to 80+ members. It was never a DCI regulation that impacted us filling a line. I am intregued that you speak of statistics as something that can be "intepreted". Statistics are factual figures. Black and white. No grey area. Statistics are not open for interpretation. Statistics are mathmatical figures. I'm also intregued by your statement " I see no numbers that me to believe that 150 is not working out". Really? You don't think that no more than 2 or 3 corps marching the full 150 in 09 is in any way a sign that 150 is not working out? Edited August 25, 2010 by txpride Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CuriousMe Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 (edited) I am intregued that you speak of statistics as something that can be "intepreted". Statistics are factual figures. Black and white. No grey area. Statistics are not open for interpretation. Statistics are mathmatical figures.I'm also intregued by your statement " I see no numbers that me to believe that 150 is not working out". Really? You don't think that no more than 2 or 3 corps marching the full 150 in 09 is in any way a sign that 150 is not working out? Statistics can be a very grey business. There's data and there's information. Data is the numbers, the facts and figures.....information is that data put into context. That context is what makes the interpretation of data possible. I'm sure you've heard the joke....there's lies, there's #### lies and then there's statistics. That's because two folks can take the same data and make opposite cases with it. It's all about the interpretation of the data....that's when it becomes usable information. No, I don't think that the data you provided supports your hypothesis. As has been discussed here ad nauseum, multiple corps had late season injuries that impacted how many actually marched at finals. This isn't uncommon.....a corps having 147 members at finals instead of 150 is not relevant. Edited August 25, 2010 by CuriousMe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cage Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Yeah, that's true. I could go check it out. I haven't yet. Is it high cam? I assume it would be. It depends on what show you want to count them at. Do not try from the Allentown view point though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobrien Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 (edited) This thread has been up for a week, and the misspelling in the title is an eyesore each and every time it's bumped to the top. Can a mod fix it, since it appears the OP hasn't noticed it yet? Edited August 25, 2010 by mobrien Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bawker Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 This thread has been up for a week, and the misspelling in the title is an eyesore each and every time it's bumped to the top. Can a mod fix it, since it appears the OP hasn't noticed it yet? Fixed, Grammar Nazi. 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.