Old Corps Guy Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 yeah average score doesn't quite work in this scenario since the corps you are trying to boost has only 1 show under their belt (with no direct competition) and the TOC corps have 3 shows and started earlier. Unfortunately last nights Fairfield show got rained out or we would have seen exactly how they would have stood up against 2 of the TOC corps, but I guess they see one tonight or tomorrow. I agree wtih you. That is why I qualified my statement at the end. We will see more movement now that the head-to-heads have started. By the end of this weekend, we should have enough info to see where corps really stand at this early point in the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Remember everyone: Scores are meaningless until corps see each other head to head. Many would argue that they're even meaningless then... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CuriousMe Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I agree. I am not going to get into the discussion of what corps are doing more than others. That is for the judges to decide, because everyone thinks that THEIR CORPS does MORE than everyone else. I actually don't think that the cavaliers do more than everyone else. I think they are different. The do more in their own way, just like BD does more in their own way. It is all relative and it all gets sorted out in the end (as long as it is clean). What is bothering me a bit is how all of the sudden people are enraged about a couple of corps (BD & Cavaliers) not being complete. I have been around the activity for a while and it is normal for a few corps to not being done the first few shows. The reasons for not being done could be a multitude of things. I can tell you that it is not for lack of effort or planning (especially not for the big boy corps). Either way, I could care less. It just perplexes me that people can be so angry about a couple of corps not being complete on June 18th. It's June 18th for cryin out loud. It is common for a few corps to not have their show completely on the field at the beginning of the season....and it's just as common for folks to gripe about it. Nothing new here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralTsoChicken Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Here's a novel idea. Maybe the TOC corps are scoring better and will score better this season than their non-TOC counterparts...psst... (whisper) because they are better! This concept isn't really that hard to grasp... they are the "tour of champions" for a reason. Because historically, they are that good. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TubaJon Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Remember everyone: Scores are meaningless until corps see each other head to head. I love how every year this seems to have to be clarified 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Other Mike Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 It's no different with grading in school. Take the student who completes a test, does so on time, but only gets a C. Just didn't know the material, but hey, they finished. Well, so what? They still got a C. Then there is the student who struggles to finish, leave about 3 or 4 questions unanswered, but they did "A" work. Even with the few questions unanswered the teacher can see that this person spent more time studying, got more answers right, and clearly has a better understanding of the material. For that they get an "A-", maybe a "B" or "B+." Either way, this is a great example to learn from. Completing a field show filled with average to below average ideas and performance levels only gives us more AVERAGE. Completing less field drill and music for the sake of quality gives us MORE quality. Quality should always be rewarded. It's not a race. I disagree with this, at least part of me does. (The hard part of this is that I could actually argue both sides of this issue.) If you're going to be judged on "X" number of minutes and given points for content, and you leave out 1 minute of content, you should not get credit of how good it "might" be as compared with what you actually did complete. At the very least ( IMHO ) if you don't perform a complete show, you should not get a full check. You hire 8 new employees to work for you. 7 of them work the full 8 hours, some sloppy work, some good work. 1 does really great work for 6 and 1/2 hours but doesn't do much for the last hour and a half but you're going to pay him more than the others because even thought it was only a partial work day, he did great when he DID work ? I'm so confused By the way, usually, the kid who studied the most finishes all the questions on the test with time to spare. The kid who isn't prepared gets some wrong and leaves some blank ( or at least that what I've seen in 30+ years of teaching ) At the very least, interesting discussion 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soccerguy315 Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 This is a common fallacy. The Cavaliers were actually MORE prepared because they put more time into the first 10 minutes of their show rather than try to spread themselves thin and complete the other 1.5 minutes. And they still get judged for playing the final minute or so in an arc. But what garnered them the big score was how well prepared they were with the first 10 minutes. The scoring system is not a tic system. They don't take points off for unfinished shows. In the early season it is considered OK to not be completely finished with things. Later on that might hurt you, but early it does not. I am in agreement with DCI on this. I would rather see 10 minutes of something extraordinary (ha, no pun intended) rather than something average, but finished. Who cares? Call me when it's good. Plenty of shows do get completed before the first competition, yet some of those are not fully thought out. Some would have been better left incomplete and perhaps the staff can take more time to get things right. HALF of great is far better than ALL of average. It's no different with grading in school. Take the student who completes a test, does so on time, but only gets a C. Just didn't know the material, but hey, they finished. Well, so what? They still got a C. Then there is the student who struggles to finish, leave about 3 or 4 questions unanswered, but they did "A" work. Even with the few questions unanswered the teacher can see that this person spent more time studying, got more answers right, and clearly has a better understanding of the material. For that they get an "A-", maybe a "B" or "B+." Either way, this is a great example to learn from. Completing a field show filled with average to below average ideas and performance levels only gives us more AVERAGE. Completing less field drill and music for the sake of quality gives us MORE quality. Quality should always be rewarded. It's not a race. by this logic if you stand perfectly still in a perfect arc while you play, you get a perfect score in visual. I would rather see something finished. Your show is good? cool, call me when it's finished. See, it works both ways. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralTsoChicken Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 You hire 8 new employees to work for you. 7 of them work the full 8 hours, some sloppy work, some good work. 1 does really great work for 6 and 1/2 hours but doesn't do much for the last hour and a half but you're going to pay him more than the others because even thought it was only a partial work day, he did great when he DID work ? I'm so confused Yep. If I had an employee who left work 15 minutes early every day, there would be hell to pay. His performance while he's working does not make up for his inability to finish his obligation. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMichael1230 Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 We'll see, but that comparison just doesn't work. Yet. We'll see when the Scouts beat the Blue Stars......thats what this thread is really about, right ?? : ) G Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 I disagree with this, at least part of me does. (The hard part of this is that I could actually argue both sides of this issue.) You hire 8 new employees to work for you. 7 of them work the full 8 hours, some sloppy work, some good work. 1 does really great work for 6 and 1/2 hours but doesn't do much for the last hour and a half but you're going to pay him more than the others because even thought it was only a partial work day, he did great when he DID work ? I'm so confused My thought is that if the 1 gets the job done in 6 and a half hours and the other 7 just work for 8 hours, but don't get the job done, which is really better? Are we rewarding putting in the time, or are we rewarding for getting the job done? Also, this is sort of the hourly versus salary argument... I also see both sides of the argument, so it's very hard. I want to see completed shows. In this instance, at least we get all of the music. 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.