wolfgang Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 (edited) Rule proposals 33 of them. Personal thoughts on several: #1- Remove seeding for World Classes at Championships. My question is why give special treatment to World Class over any other class (this will also be a comment for several other proposals). While we all recognize this is the class that fills up the arena on Saturday, I'm not sure why the seeding for World Class should be diffent for any other class. After all, now that World Class has a semifinals, all guards get 3 performances. Why should A and Open know results after prelims/semis and World not? I don't see the need for this rule change. #2- Eliminate winners of Elite Regional from going on last at World Championship prelims. The rationale for the rule seems reasonable. #6- Performance order for Finals to be reverse of semi final scores, regardless of rounds. Agree with this. Rounds are determined based off what happens earlier in the season, but as we all know, things can and do change in the weeks between the final regional and Championships. It's true that the 2nd place group in one round may outscore the winning group in another round. 7. Move Scholastic World Semis from UD While I understand the quick turnaround part, I don't foresee this happening. 8. Alternate IW and SW performing first for World Semifinals. This would be a more feasable solution, EXCEPT for the fact that the crowd for IW semis picks up dramatically from SW semis. Would the same # of people get out of bed earlier on Friday to watch IW semis? This proposal has a much higher chance of passing than the previous one. 9. ALL World Class groups compete in the Finals location for ALL performances. Why? What if an A or Open director made the same proposal? In order for this to happen, WGI would need to spend the $ to procure another venue for the following reason: The sheer # of SA units dictates 2 sites. Also, since SA has both semis and finals on Friday, this means they really need to be done late afternoon Thursday (while SW has a quick turnaround time between prelims and semis, at least the finalists in that class get at least 28 or more hours between SW semis and finals. SA has to do both on Friday). With financial realities being what they are, I don't see this happening. Also, the A and Open groups manage to make the adjustment from James Trent/Centerville/Convention Center/Nutter etc to UD Arena. It seems reasonable to expect the elite, most experienced performers should be able to do the same. #15- Promote the top 3 in each class for the following season, PLUS any group that make A or Open finals 3 consecutive years get promoted. Units may appeal (details are spelled out in the proposal). Like death and taxes, we can be sure every year a proposal will come along dealing with how promotions are handled. My feelings- the top 3 part, fine. Seems reasonable, especially with the appeal process. I disagree with the 3 consecutive years thing. Let's say a SO group makes finals 3 years in a row, and finishes 10th, 13th, and 15th (in that order). Are we really proposing that a 15th place SO guard would be remotely competive in SW? Yet the way the rule is worded, this could be an example. << Sidenote- without mentioning names, this would be a great proposal for the percussion side of the activity.>> I'd love to see what the CGP readership thinks about these or any other proposals. Edited May 12, 2011 by wolfgang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATXguard Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 I thought it was interesting that the "age limit" came back again. This time only for open class -- raising the age limit from 22 to 24 for Independent Open class... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamorbust Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 I thought it was interesting that the "age limit" came back again. This time only for open class -- raising the age limit from 22 to 24 for Independent Open class... I was about to comment on the same rule proposal. Definitely peaked my interest. I thought the changing of box scores to more reflect our school's grading system was also very interesting. But it leaves Box 3 twice as wide open than the others, which doesn't really make sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrishDish1002 Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 I will say this about number 9. The last 2 years my kids did NOT make SA finals, but were fortunate enough to perform in the UD arena both times in prelims. I have great pics of the kids on that big stage! I'd hate to lose that opportunity. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dugg Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 sebastienne st. jacque proposal # 34 didn't make the cut:create a midget class tall flags division. cost:tiny! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Denzer Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 Last years proposals were much more fun....the elimination of all rules for world class (with the exception of fire and live animals).....unlimited membership for world class guards.....this years proposals seem boring in comparison. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Denzer Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 I would amend the promotion proposal to the following. The top 3 from each class are automatically promoted. Any guard that places in the top 5 two consecutive years for open would be promoted to world. Any guard that places in the top 10 two consecutive years for A would be promoted to open. I like the idea of the appeal process for guards that experience large membership turnover. I also like that WGI took a more aggressive stance on mid season promotions this past year to make sure guards were in the correct classes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATXguard Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 I think this definition of the placements within the open and a classes would make more sense than any/all consecutive finalists. As someone brought up previously, just because a guard makes finals 3 consecutive years, that doesn't mean they're necessarily strong enough for the next class. I would amend the promotion proposal to the following. The top 3 from each class are automatically promoted. Any guard that places in the top 5 two consecutive years for open would be promoted to world. Any guard that places in the top 10 two consecutive years for A would be promoted to open. I like the idea of the appeal process for guards that experience large membership turnover. I also like that WGI took a more aggressive stance on mid season promotions this past year to make sure guards were in the correct classes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ItsOnTheField Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Some interesting proposals, but nothing too riveting. Though, it does seem that one of the submission-ers spends a little too much time reading recaps. Just sayin :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATXguard Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 One of the things is - if you don't have strong solid numbers and examples, people won't believe you or even seriously consider some of your proposals. Even if you do have the information, people won't believe you a lot of the time. Some interesting proposals, but nothing too riveting. Though, it does seem that one of the submission-ers spends a little too much time reading recaps. Just sayin :) 1 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.