Talent or Staff

[corpsband]

Please explain the rationale for your choice.

[AlexL]

Biggest factors are 1. staff, 2. average age of members 3. Time to build the 'system' over a period of a few years.

A corps with 3rd place staff yet 15th place talent every year, would at first suffer from a lower than average age than that staff has usually had, and also would suffer from the fact that the program was still being built (no vets that know the system through years of experience in it, starting from the ground in november instead of picking up closer to august) . Over time the second negative would go away as the program was established, but the lower than average age compared to other top groups would likely keep them at 4-5 or lower most years (keeping with the assumption that the corps would still have 15th place talent). Over time, the average age though, would likely rise, allowing a higher placement to be more likely.

[corpsband]

Biggest factors are 1. staff, 2. average age of members 3. Time to build the 'system' over a period of a few years.

A corps with 3rd place staff yet 15th place talent every year, would at first suffer from a lower than average age than that staff has usually had, and also would suffer from the fact that the program was still being built (no vets that know the system through years of experience in it, starting from the ground in november instead of picking up closer to august) . Over time the second negative would go away as the program was established, but the lower than average age compared to other top groups would likely keep them at 4-5 or lower most years (keeping with the assumption that the corps would still have 15th place talent). Over time, the average age though, would likely rise, allowing a higher placement to be more likely.

Interesting.

Why do you feel the average age is a critical factor for pushing to the very top?

[wvu80]

9-11, staff matters.

It takes talent to win, but not everybody with talent can can.

[va9590jm]

It depends on a number of factors, the staff and the membership itself are both major players. If the overall membership is a young one that just doesn't get drum corps that well yet and take a lot longer to figure things out, then even with a great staff, they'll still not place as high as a membership with the same staff that is older and "gets" drum corps faster, even if they are a lot of rookies. I believe that one of the greatest factors is the learning curve of the rookies, if they take longer to understand things, they won't place as high as those who get things faster, even if its the same percentage of rookies.

[corpsband]

It takes talent to win, but not everybody with talent can can.

What exactly do you mean by this? What separates talent that can win and equal talent that can't win?

[mcjordansc]

If you took the average 15th places corps' members and dropped them into the 2010 Blue Devils' show with the Blue Devils' staff, it would be a train wreck. The kids would be to young and too inexperienced to pull it off. I doubt they would finish as high as 15th.

[splat-a-drag-a-phonium]

A top staff could worth several positions even with a young inexperienced members.

[supersop]

Equal talent can have a different of 12 placements easily.

The difference is show design and the staff's ability to clean.

A 15th place corps where everyone leaves and goes to the 3rd place corps with the same staff as the 3rd place corps comes with a few assumptions.

1. The talent level is drastically dimished

2. The staff is incredibly competent.

3. While the corps should place 13-15, the reputation of the staff and corps will keep them in the top 12.

That's why I said 9th-11th on the poll.

If the talent in the 15th place corps is equal to the 3rd place corps ... they will remain in the top 5. Because the staff and design will make the difference.

[BlooContraGuy]

A great staff can teach well. They can teach the best and they can teach the "15th place talent level" to be great. I put 5-7.