AlexL Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 (edited) If you wanted to quantify this, youd probably want to relate the talent coming in with product going out. A quality staff isnt just the product that comes out, its what they do with the pieces they have. Its hard to quantify talent, but you can quantify the average age, which can approximate the general talent and maturity level. Quantifying the product would be in the score, but since scores arent linear, it might be a bit harder to quantify possibly. Edited October 13, 2010 by AlexL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rayfallon Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 There is some unbelievable talent at the staff level of many corps. I got to thinking how the corps would do based on the talent level of the staff - taking out the talent of the members that march there.How would the Corps finish at finals if ranked by the talent of the staff alone? Here's mine: 1 Blue Devils 2 Madison Scouts 3 Cadets 4 Crown 5 Blue Stars 6 Cavies 7 Santa Clara Vanguard 8 Blue Knights 9 Phantom Regiment 10 Bluecoats 11 Crossmen 12 Boston Crusaders Have Fun! Play Nice! Mike | Crossmen Brass 1989, 1990, 1992, 1993 | Jersey Surf Visual Staff 1994 | Holy Name Cadets Merchandise Manager 2009 I'm glad you put in that Crossmen disclaimer... otherwise a whole bunch of folks would have figured you were nuts rather than simply tragically biased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corps8294 Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 Pioneer #1! They are so going to "celebrate" and win top 12 in 2011! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldbandguy Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 How do you measure staff "talent"? By the foot and by the pound... I hear the Bluecoats have a new visual tech that is 6'10" and 325 lbs. That should move them up from the 10th place staff significantly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnyboy Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 Although the staff:corps placement ratio is significant, the best predictor for corps placement is money spent. Bottom line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soccerguy315 Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 huh? 2. Madison10. Bluecoats 11. Crossmen ...are we looking at the same list? This isn't even close to mirroring 2010 placement. ok, obviously I was unclear... in my opinion, I think the list of most talented staff mirrors the 2010 placement. Not that the OP's list does. My list closely mirrors. Perhaps you responded before I edited with my list... hopefully it is clearer with that included in the post =) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soccerguy315 Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 *Crown Staff list* I counted 52 names (give or take 1)... one staff member for every 3 marchers. That is a crap ton of staff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWonka Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 I counted 52 names (give or take 1)... one staff member for every 3 marchers.That is a crap ton of staff. Yeah as I read that list that was the first thing that came to mind. No wonder drum corps is #### expensive now. What ever happened to have a couple of brass guys, couple of percussion, visual guard. Like 10-12 at most. I know a big chunk of that list does not go on tour but still. ####..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBadMadMan Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 Wow...the OP asks for people's opinions on how they would rank the staff's and gets 3 pages of scientific analysis on how to go about it. Of those 3 pages, there might have been 3 of 4 people who actually did. Lighten up, people! This is supposed to be fun, remember? I think we often take ourselves too seriously around here. But sometimes it's ok to just have a good time. Rank them however you'd like! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrillmanSop06 Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 Placements don't matter. Numbers don't matter. Pedagogy, attitude, and teaching style do matter. Unless you've marched under these individuals, equating staff with placement is not really possible. The largest measure of an effective teacher is how well they connect with their students and motivate them to achieve of their own free will. And yes, staff are teachers. They are faculty. And they have the same responsibility that classroom teachers do which is to guide young people towards knowledge, understanding, and application and to motivate them to do so through their own passion and understanding of pedagogy. I understand this is for fun but it seems like there are people who might think that the placement of a group is relative to the effectiveness of the teaching. I've heard stories from corps who get good through less-than-best-practice means at times. And frankly, I'd rather see good pedagogy than numbers. In life, that's a bit higher on the priority list. Especially when many of those individuals taught using less-than-best-practice means will go on to teach themselves. 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.