Recommended Posts

If your previous statement (and this "competitive inertia" concept is possible), then why didn't this hold true for the Bluecoats in 2008 or 2009 after their 2007 season, or in 2011 after their 2010 season?

Bloo went from 7th to 6th 2007 to 2008, so you lost me.

At any rate, Bloo has not had any CI for very long, but has been building it up, in very small increments. Its music program has always been its strong point. The brass program "peaked" in 2007 with its 1st place finishes at all regionals and quarter finals.

Now we have to ask why Bloo got 4th place at Semis and Finals. Did they suddenly get 3 slots worse? It's a possibility. I claim it was CI (in that Bloo had none, or not not enough.)

As for 2010, I've already been on record as saying that Bloo's success was as much a function of Crown's and Cadets failures as it was anything of its own doing.

I feel I'm just repeating myself...are you sure you understand CI?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Um, what? I'm sure thousands of people beg to differ about the hornline being "disastrous" from beginning to end this year. Posts like these are totally unnecessary and it really makes me sad to see t

I've rekindled my love of drum corps less than 5 years ago after a hiatus of 22 years. We went to finals in 2010. I did not blink when I watched drum corps live. I couldn't travel in 2011 and watched

/

With these moves, does anyone think there will be new version of "competitive inertia" suggested? Maybe it will now be called "west coast competitive inertia."

For most of you reading this, that won't make a bit of sense. For those of you in the know, it will.

:worthy: :worthy: :worthy:

But yes. It will simply be adjusted to explain why Vanguard isn't scoring as well as he thinks they should.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to get off this website. This is not the place to be trashing other corps and especially making judgments about the future. Honestly its ridiculous that y'all are even discussing this. Remember DCI judges are like some of the most un-qualified people in the organization, trust me I marched a different corps and listening to some of the tapes...their comments have little to no intellectual advice to help us improve on (no matter what background they have come from). Its quite sad and hilarious at the same time. Coming from a different corps I saw what they did and listened to their warm up as we passed by, they are amazing (not going to lie). Please understand that its more than just scores and appealing to the public. Much like our instructors, they are trying their best to give them the most proper musical education they can get for their money. So please, I hope other people see this and agree, especially those who have marched other corps. Its annoying to see people who have never marched before, or have marched but a very long time ago, make these comments by getting their info. simply on numbers or seeing one show. Do me a favor, if you're young enough, march next year. If you have aged out, come to multiple shows (at least 1 regional and 2 smaller shows) through out the season, not all in just one weekend. You will see what I mean...

Say what you will regarding judges, but SCV was pretty consistent with their low-scoring brass this season. While I don't think I've been critical or judgmental in regards to SCV's brass hirings, I stand by my statement that

SCV had problems last season in brass. It seems SCV as an organization has been aggressive to upgrade their percussion program last off-season, and they look to do the same this off-season with their brass caption. If the brass staff changes yield the same results as the percussion staff changes, then Vanguard fans will have an even more exciting season in 2012 than they did in 2011.

I think their brass improved significantly throughout the season, but they were obviously inferior to the rest of the Top 6 corps (and then some) where it counts: on the sheets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. I have worked with lots of DCI judges. Some are fantastic teachers. Some are not. MOST of them are competent. I think it is far too easy to blame the judges when things aren't going your way as a member or and instructor (and to a certain extent, a fan), but I can tell you that many of them are quite good.

So very, very true. There have been plenty of times when I've butted heads with judges but more often than not they were correct and I was emotional (if you can believe that :lookaround: ).

I've disagreed with judges as well, but that doesn't make the judges incorrect. I think the majority of them are competent and knowledgable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other problem I have was when you were talking about is how they brass changes might have a good effect on the corps. I understand you used the percussion as an example for positive changes, but that doesn't explain how the brass will get better. Consistency seems a much more favorable way.

Assuming this was addressed to me (hard to tell with your quoting methods), I wasn't trying to correlate percussion staff changing leading to success with brass staff change automatically leading to success. When I said,

If the brass staff changes yield the same results as the percussion staff changes, then Vanguard fans will have an even more exciting season in 2012 than they did in 2011.
I was merely pointing out that the percussion change DID yield good/positive results, and IF (big if, obviously) the brass staff changes lead to a better performing & higher placing brass line in 2012, then SCV fans will be happier (and people who question the staff changes might realize that perhaps the Vanguard admin made the right decision).

I agree that consistency is a key factor in success & improvement for any organization. But if it's obvious that a current caption staff isn't the right fit for an organization, it's illogical to continue trying to 'force' the issue: especially if you can attract other staffers whom you feel will be a better fit.

Also, FWIW, we have no idea whatsoever how good a fit this staff was from a non-competitive standpoint. I'm looking at the black and white/absolute evidence of how effective the brass staff was in 2011: the caption scores. It's possible that there were other behind-the-scenes concerns that led to the staff change. Maybe the brass staff didn't get along with the other staff. Maybe the brass staff didn't get along with Jeff or the BOD. Maybe the REALLY were pushing for Fieldler to convince DCI to make the move to legalize woodwinds. Maybe the brass staff left on their own accord. Who knows all of the details of this staff change (beyond the obvious fact that Bluecoats have had a tremendously successful brass staff in every sense of judgement and the staffers would likely improve nearly any brass program and be an upgrade for almost all DCI corps).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloo went from 7th to 6th 2007 to 2008, so you lost me.

In your last message, you were referencing brass scores, not overall scores. You were correlating the success of the Bluecoats brass staff in beating SCV, with an unmentioned possibility that the staff that is moving to SCV will have the same success. Since your last post referenced brass scores, that is where I was headed in my discussion. If this "competitive inertia" is plausible, then why did brass scores for the Bluecoats go down in 2008 compared to 2007? Better yet, why did brass scores go down in Semi-Finals in 2007, if their "inertia" should have propelled them higher going into Finals? In this "competitive inertia," can a group suddenly go backwards? If so, what staff are to blame for letting this happen?

At any rate, Bloo has not had any CI for very long, but has been building it up, in very small increments. Its music program has always been its strong point. The brass program "peaked" in 2007 with its 1st place finishes at all regionals and quarter finals.

Agreed

Now we have to ask why Bloo got 4th place at Semis and Finals. Did they suddenly get 3 slots worse? It's a possibility. I claim it was CI (in that Bloo had none, or not not enough.)

This is a topic of debate. I would have to think that the "hosing down" of the hornline book prior to Finals week caused an effect in both Brass score and General Effect music scores and thus, the drop. I have a feeling though that this wasn't the decision of the brass arranger.

As for 2010, I've already been on record as saying that Bloo's success was as much a function of Crown's and Cadets failures as it was anything of its own doing.

A colleague of mine calls this the vacuum effect; when one established corps doesn't do as well as it normally does, it creates a void and another corps gets pulled into that place. I think the better metaphor is the "suck effect." When a corps sucks, they drop in placement and another corps is sucked up to take their placement.

I feel I'm just repeating myself...are you sure you understand CI?

I am an educated individual with a solid background in music and quantitative analysis. I would like to see the the statistical method or approach by which you have validated your precept of competitive inertia. Have you created your own test for this? If so, what is its validity? If validity has not been measured, then this competitive inertia thing is all hogwash.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am an educated individual with a solid background in music and quantitative analysis. I would like to see the the statistical method or approach by which you have validated your precept of competitive inertia. Have you created your own test for this? If so, what is its validity? If validity has not been measured, then this competitive inertia thing is all hogwash.

[NOTE TO OTHERS: Elmo and I know each other; we've met personally]

Let's get back to the fundamental claim of CI, and that is: No corps can win without first coming in 2nd or 3rd. The statistical analysis is in the historical record, and is in the original post.

The rest of the discussion (and fun!), comes back to answering the question "Why might this be?" (You can't discredit the fact...no corps has ever won w/o first coming in 2nd or 3rd.)

In the original CI post, I also tried to answer the question; I'm not going to repeat it here. Examples such as Bloo 2007 Brass Score add to my point, but only anecdotally, because CI doesn't really address captions per se, now does it? It's human nature to take a theory and try to extend it. If you've been following closely, I even made a separate thread showing the Caption CI! (2007 Bloo Hornline Quarters is the ONLY CAPTION WIN for a non champion during finals week, since SUNCOAST, until Crown did it in 2009.)

You're perfectly at liberty to disagree and call it hogwash, but then you have to show that all scoring is completely objective, and correct. Saying "Oh, the judges usually get it right" is not enough.

And finally, last year or the year before, the chief judge was quoted in a DCI Magazine: "Judging is more art than science." Then get rid of the sheets entirely, and leave it up the creative, artistic feelings of the judges!...or the audience. :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites

[NOTE TO OTHERS: Elmo and I know each other; we've met personally]

Let's get back to the fundamental claim of CI, and that is: No corps can win without first coming in 2nd or 3rd. The statistical analysis is in the historical record, and is in the original post.

The rest of the discussion (and fun!), comes back to answering the question "Why might this be?" (You can't discredit the fact...no corps has ever won w/o first coming in 2nd or 3rd.)

In the original CI post, I also tried to answer the question; I'm not going to repeat it here. Examples such as Bloo 2007 Brass Score add to my point, but only anecdotally, because CI doesn't really address captions per se, now does it? It's human nature to take a theory and try to extend it. If you've been following closely, I even made a separate thread showing the Caption CI! (2007 Bloo Hornline Quarters is the ONLY CAPTION WIN for a non champion during finals week, since SUNCOAST, until Crown did it in 2009.)

You're perfectly at liberty to disagree and call it hogwash, but then you have to show that all scoring is completely objective, and correct. Saying "Oh, the judges usually get it right" is not enough.

And finally, last year or the year before, the chief judge was quoted in a DCI Magazine: "Judging is more art than science." Then get rid of the sheets entirely, and leave it up the creative, artistic feelings of the judges!...or the audience. :ph34r:

This statistical tendency of yours called CI, and that is all it is.. a tendency, is fun but also meaningless. Sort of like when a NASCAR commentator states at the beginning of a race, "Nobody has ever one this thing from starting farther back than ninth; and then only if they do not change tires within twenty-four laps from the end after coming out of the pits first under the last yellow flag." Inevitability, of course, someone actually does win that race from the eleventh starting position which then makes the commentator look rather foolish. As for your CI, here is an interesting stat for ya: Disregarding the top three from 1971, because the top three from that year are irrelevant, but including all corps placing first - third from 1972 - 2011, thirteen corps have placed in those positions. Of those, eight corps have taken home a title and five corps never placed first. For fun, let us check the "efficiency rate" of your CI theory shall we? Lets see, eight divided by thirteen is... by diggers your CI efficiency rate is 62%! Wow!!! So, go ahead and have fun with this completely meaningless CI and I will look you up if and when a corps who has never placed higher than fourth jumps up and wins a title.

Edit: Forgot the token smiley face :tongue:

Edited by Stu
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This statistical tendency of yours called CI, and that is all it is.. a tendency, is fun but also meaningless. Sort of like when a NASCAR commentator states at the beginning of a race, "Nobody has ever one this thing from starting farther back than ninth; and then only if they do not change tires within twenty-four laps from the end after coming out of the pits first under the last yellow flag." Inevitability, of course, someone actually does win that race from the eleventh starting position which then makes the commentator look rather foolish. As for your CI, here is an interesting stat for ya: Disregarding the top three from 1971, because the top three from that year are irrelevant, but including all corps placing first - third from 1972 - 2011, thirteen corps have placed in those positions. Of those, eight corps have taken home a title and five corps never placed first. For fun, let us check the "efficiency rate" of your CI theory shall we? Lets see, eight divided by thirteen is... by diggers your CI efficiency rate is 62%! Wow!!! So, go ahead and have fun with this completely meaningless CI and I will look you up if and when a corps who has never placed higher than fourth jumps up and wins a title.

Edit: Forgot the token smiley face :tongue:

Who wants to be first to point out the error here, and how it has nothing to do with CI? Oh heck, I'll do it...

Let's use formal logic, just for fun.

Let P be all corps that have achieved place 1

Let Q be all corps that have achieved places (2 or 3)

CI says "IF P THEN Q" (P is a subset of Q), or CONTRAPOSITIVELY: "IF NOT Q THEN NOT P"

You are saying "IF Q THEN P" should be true, by calling out those that went Q >> NOT P. Blue Stars and Troopers have made it to 2,3, but not yet to #1. CI doesn't care about that scenario; it's not in the definition! It doesn't say "If a corps gets to 2nd or 3rd, they're GUARANTEED 1st." It only says "If a corps placed 1st it has also placed 2nd or 3rd."

When we get the situation "IF P THEN NOT Q", CI will be debunked, cuz we'll have a corps that didn't place 2nd or 3rd, but still won. Glassmen? Boston? Blue Knights? Pioneer? By definition (P >> Q), CI has 100% efficiency until it's shown to be false; P is always a subset of Q until it isn't. (Have I said this enough ways yet?)

PS: None of this accounts for the order imposed by the timeline. I left it out for simplicity, or I would've had to create a 3rd condition [R such that (2,3) preceded (1)]. It's not necessary anyway, because CI will be debunked as soon as it's needed, because we'd have a corps to go from 4th to 1st and then to 2nd or 3rd, ya dig? Technically, that corps meets the definition above, P>>Q, because it's in both sets, but since the timeline broke the CI theory, I don't care.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Who wants to be first to point out the error here, and how it has nothing to do with CI? Oh heck, I'll do it...

Let's use formal logic, just for fun.

Let P be all corps that have achieved place 1

Let Q be all corps that have achieved places (2 or 3)

CI says "IF P THEN Q" (P is a subset of Q), or CONTRAPOSITIVELY: "IF NOT Q THEN NOT P"

You are saying "IF Q THEN P" should be true, by calling out those that went Q >> NOT P. Blue Stars and Troopers have made it to 2,3, but not yet to #1. CI doesn't care about that scenario; it's not in the definition! It doesn't say "If a corps gets to 2nd or 3rd, they're GUARANTEED 1st." It only says "If a corps placed 1st it has also placed 2nd or 3rd."

When we get the situation "IF P THEN NOT Q", CI will be debunked, cuz we'll have a corps that didn't place 2nd or 3rd, but still won. Glassmen? Boston? Blue Knights? Pioneer? By definition (P >> Q), CI has 100% efficiency until it's shown to be false; P is always a subset of Q until it isn't. (Have I said this enough ways yet?)

PS: None of this accounts for the order imposed by the timeline. I left it out for simplicity, or I would've had to create a 3rd condition [R such that (2,3) preceded (1)]. It's not necessary anyway, because CI will be debunked as soon as it's needed, because we'd have a corps to go from 4th to 1st and then to 2nd or 3rd, ya dig? Technically, that corps meets the definition above, P>>Q, because it's in both sets, but since the timeline broke the CI theory, I don't care.

:doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.