The 150 member increase.

[WOOHOO]

I hear ya, cage - and I did read where you rounded up. Believe it or not, I did the same with the guard pit and DM counts that I was not certain on (and still got lower figures than 150).I also want you to know that I don't intend to come down on you. You seem like a very reasonable person and I appreciate that.

That said, I'm certain (as a marched those years) that you are quite a distance off on a few of them. For example, I'm pretty certain that SCV had 64 horns. Same with Phantom (though I have not counted yet so I might be wrong). Hornlines in the 70s was not a common thing yet. Even when Cadets and Star did it a few times back then, it was considered monsterous. Star's 70 horns in 88 next to everyone elses 58-64 looked like some huge college band or BOA finalist band's hornline. So I have my doubts that anyone other than maybe Cadets (because they experimented with 86 the year before and probably didn't want to deny a bunch of returning vets membership) and MAYBE Star had hornlines as big as 64.

Honestly, at that time 58 was still the common number and 64 like today's 80. 70 wouls have been like a 90 member hornline today (just not something you would LIKELY see... at least not in the near future).

Have a good one, cage. And thanks for your insight. I'll go check those 87 numbers when I get a chance (and maybe a few other years just for the fun of it...I think we can all relax and just enjoy this discussion now anyway).

Can we all agree that you are "screaming" about apples, and he/she (or both) are "screaming" about oranges? Your point is fine, and so is his, but proving two different points?

[txpride]

Oh by the way, guys (and gals). I finally got my phone back up and was able to complete Glassmen and Troopers counts.

I also left some commentary and further opinion at the bottom of the post. Go check it out and give me your thoughts when you get a chance. Now that the heat in this discussion appears to be cooling of, this thread might finally turn in to some pleasent discussion.

[txpride]

Can we all agree that you are "screaming" about apples, and he/she (or both) are "screaming" about oranges? Your point is fine, and so is his, but proving two different points?

I don't know if I'd go that far. If its statistics we are talking about, its not a matter of "opinion". Either a figure is right or its wrong.

Now we can agree to disagree agreeably all day long on whether or not we think a certain max number is a good idea or not. That IS a matter of opinion. But the stats themselves (if we are talking about his 87 figures) are either accurate or they are not (and mine need to as well be held to the same accoubtability).

Statistics are not an apples to oranges comparison.

[WOOHOO]

I don't know if I'd go that far. If its statistics we are talking about, its not a matter of "opinion". Either a figure is right or its wrong.

Now we can agree to disagree agreeably all day long on whether or not we think a certain max number is a good idea or not. That IS a matter of opinion. But the stats themselves (if we are talking about his 87 figures) are either accurate or they are not (and mine need to as well be held to the same accoubtability).

Statistics are not an apples to oranges comparison.

I'm saying he's not talking strictly about statistics; he's talking about how corps have always unfulfilled the corps limit; whether it is 114 or 119 in a 128 limit or 140 or 145 in a 150 limit is inconsequential to that argument.

In this sense, it is an apples and oranges discussion.

[N.E. Brigand]

Now, I'm not suggesting we go back to 128. I'm not even suggesting 135. How about 140? Based on the patterns of the figures I posted, 140 looks like a much more realistic number for everyone. Thoughts?

Taking your 2009 numbers as accurate, the top twelve corps had Finals counts of: 150, 149, 148, 148, 148, 147, 145, 145, 144, 142, 139, and 124. That's an average of 144.1 members. Take out the Troopers, and the average is 145.9.

[Shamu89]

To respond to the OP, I guess it comes down to the definition of success. If it allows more kids to march, then I say it is successful. Does having more members cause difficulties or detract from the performances? IMHO, I don't think so, but what do I know. I just started following DCI heavy in the last year and that's only because I have a kid marching now.

* Cadets - 72 brass (8:09), 18 battery, 15 pit (1:15 zoomed in) 40 guard (1:15 amd yes, I DID count the soloists as well), 2 DM's. Total 147 (I'm sure venkeman will swear up and down that his 42 member guard figure was right. However, it is wrong. And I checked 11 times and in more than one spot than just "1:15"...though 1:15 is probably the easiest spot to get an accurate count.) Sorry venkeman, but they marched 147 on the night of finals. Case closed.

My daughter marched sop with the Cadets this year, so I know a little about what was going on.

Looks like you need to recount Cadets. I froze on your timing mark of 1:15 in multicam and count 20 sabres, 21 flags, and Jeffrey. Maybe you're missing one of the flags on the right 40 since they're kind of stacked on top of each other in an arc, from the camera's point of view. Total = 42

I also count 71 brass, and that's expected. You can see the hole where a melo who was injured in quarters did not march semis or finals. You can't expect a corps to fill an injury hole that late, can you?

They had 1 DM and 2 field conductors - one comes in with the brass/guard block at the beginning, and the other is on the left 30 during Procession.

Not idea about the pit numbers and I'm not sure about the battery either, but they did start with 5 bass drums and ended with 4 due to a very late season injury. Kid was fully prepared to gut it out, but the docs wouldn't let him, from what I heard.

I would have expected the Cadets total number to be 148, but how is that a bad thing? They had many late season injuries, and I actually expected the guard number to be lower than it was since I know a few of those kids were hurting as well. I can see your point if the corps were coming in with numbers closer to 135-140, but they're not. I'd be willing to bet that the reason few hit 150 on the nose is due to late season injuries more than anything else. You get 150 individuals working as hard as these kids work and several of them are going to break down. I'm amazed so many came so close to the max.

[txpride]

I'm saying he's not talking strictly about statistics; he's talking about how corps have always unfulfilled the corps limit; whether it is 114 or 119 in a 128 limit or 140 or 145 in a 150 limit is inconsequential to that argument.

In this sense, it is an apples and oranges discussion.

Mmmmm? I don't know. It's still a statistical comparison that can either be proven valid or invalid.

We need to first of all confirm that his figures are at least 85-100% accurate (and maybe they are). If they are, then his point is valid.

But if we re-check his figures and find them to be as off as I think they MIGHT be, then his point may not be as valid.

There is a chance he may be right and that we are no different in our struggles to meet the max now as we were back then. But if we come to find out everyone in finals was at least in the ball park of 128, then it's not a valid comparison.

Heck, after the figures I just sited, if at least SIX corps had the full 128 with no holes or alterations. Than the conclusion would be that no, we are not in the same place with our max number struggles than we were back in 87. I'd even go as far as to say if there is even ONE corps with 128 in 87, we are struggling more with our 150 max because I don't even know for sure if the one corps I think really DID have 150 (i.e., Crown) really did have that many (those darned cream colored uniforms...I love them but they are hard to count...Lol).

Edited August 23, 2010 by txpride

[WOOHOO]

Mmmmm? I don't know. It's still a statistical comparison that can either be proven valid or invalid.

We need to first of all confirm that his figures are at least 85-100% accurate (and maybe they are). If they are, then his point is valid.

But if we re-check his figures and find them to be all over thre board innacurate (not saying that will happen...just hypothetically speaking here), then his point may not be as valid.

There is a chance he may be right and that we are no different in our struggles to meet the max now as we were back then. But if we come to find out everyone in finals was at least in the ball park of 128, then it's not a valid comparison.

Heck, after the figures I just sited, if at least SIX corps had the full 128 with no holes or alterations. Than the conclusion would be that no, we are not in the same place with oue max number struggles than we were back in 87.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by ballpark, which I really haven't seen defined as yet. I would call within 10 as ballpark, and the numbers I have seen would fall under that parameter.

If your ballpark is different, fine, but this seems pretty unresolvable to me.

[txpride]

To respond to the OP, I guess it comes down to the definition of success. If it allows more kids to march, then I say it is successful. Does having more members cause difficulties or detract from the performances? IMHO, I don't think so, but what do I know. I just started following DCI heavy in the last year and that's only because I have a kid marching now.

My daughter marched sop with the Cadets this year, so I know a little about what was going on.

Looks like you need to recount Cadets. I froze on your timing mark of 1:15 in multicam and count 20 sabres, 21 flags, and Jeffrey. Maybe you're missing one of the flags on the right 40 since they're kind of stacked on top of each other in an arc, from the camera's point of view. Total = 42

I also count 71 brass, and that's expected. You can see the hole where a melo who was injured in quarters did not march semis or finals. You can't expect a corps to fill an injury hole that late, can you?

They had 1 DM and 2 field conductors - one comes in with the brass/guard block at the beginning, and the other is on the left 30 during Procession.

Not idea about the pit numbers and I'm not sure about the battery either, but they did start with 5 bass drums and ended with 4 due to a very late season injury. Kid was fully prepared to gut it out, but the docs wouldn't let him, from what I heard.

I would have expected the Cadets total number to be 148, but how is that a bad thing? They had many late season injuries, and I actually expected the guard number to be lower than it was since I know a few of those kids were hurting as well. I can see your point if the corps were coming in with numbers closer to 135-140, but they're not. I'd be willing to bet that the reason few hit 150 on the nose is due to late season injuries more than anything else. You get 150 individuals working as hard as these kids work and several of them are going to break down. I'm amazed so many came so close to the max.

Are we talking about the same year? I thought Geoffry was the 2010 soloist. Man, I may have to go back but I'm pretty certain I nailed it because like I said, I went over it quite a few times and from some different minute markings. I got 40 at least 9 or 10 times.

As for whether or not its a "bad" thing to be at 147 OR 148 is not really the issue with me. My concern is more with whether or not we should consider a lower max I'd that many corps are in the mid to high 40s (and some even lower than that).

[marchingartist]

More kids get to march and get the drum corps experience. 150 > 135. As for the pioneer or cascades argument, design better shows and hire better instructors and the talent will come flowing in too.