MHSmirage Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 WGI proposals are up.... WGI Proposals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Denzer Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 The best proposal in the bunch is not to allow guards who makes semi finals or finals in Open and World to drop down to a lower class the following year. With the number of guards dropping down only to be promoted back up the same year this rule makes sense. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I missed the one banning Adele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quegrawks Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I missed the one banning Adele Of course this would be said by .... Someone like you 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 you hear it enough times in a weekend, it's the new Malaguena....over-used 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quegrawks Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 you hear it enough times in a weekend, it's the new Malaguena....over-used Must be a TIA thing :-P lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Must be a TIA thing :-P lol and elsewhere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralTsoChicken Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 The best proposal in the bunch is not to allow guards who makes semi finals or finals in Open and World to drop down to a lower class the following year. With the number of guards dropping down only to be promoted back up the same year this rule makes sense. NO. I simply don't agree with this. Judging panels have the right to move groups up a class, as does WGI. Why on EARTH would you have a director be forced to put their kids in the same class, when sometimes they lose 75%-90% of their membership via graduation or changes? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quegrawks Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 (edited) NO. I simply don't agree with this. Judging panels have the right to move groups up a class, as does WGI. Why on EARTH would you have a director be forced to put their kids in the same class, when sometimes they lose 75%-90% of their membership via graduation or changes? Judging panels in WGI do not have the right to move groups up a class. Maybe that's the case in some local circuits, but not for WGI. Rank, then rate. If a group is promoted in WGI, it's due to a committee examining the program and saying "they are in the wrong class." If you read the rationale for this proposal, it's due to groups moving down a class to be more successful and make finals or medal in a "lower" class even though they have proven success by achieving semifinals or finals for years in open or world class. I see both points of this argument, and feel that if you can consistently make semifinals in Open or World, you are definitely competitive in those classes and should remain there. However, I understand that sometimes staff and/or performer number turnovers can be problematic. But..I also think if your turnover is in the 75%-90% range, there are other issues to explore rather than just what class you should be in, and if you're in open or world class, and lose essential staff members, you need to bring in staff who can help you remain successful in that class. It would be interesting to hear the discussions that take place in Las Vegas about this proposal though. Edited May 15, 2012 by quegrawks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 (edited) Judging panels in WGI do not have the right to move groups up a class. Maybe that's the case in some local circuits, but not for WGI. Rank, then rate. If a group is promoted in WGI, it's due to a committee examining the program and saying "they are in the wrong class." If you read the rationale for this proposal, it's due to groups moving down a class to be more successful and make finals or medal in a "lower" class even though they have proven success by achieving semifinals or finals for years in open or world class. I see both points of this argument, and feel that if you can consistently make semifinals in Open or World, you are definitely competitive in those classes and should remain there. However, I understand that sometimes staff and/or performer number turnovers can be problematic. But..I also think if your turnover is in the 75%-90% range, there are other issues to explore rather than just what class you should be in, and if you're in open or world class, and lose essential staff members, you need to bring in staff who can help you remain successful in that class. It would be interesting to hear the discussions that take place in Las Vegas about this proposal though. ever notice the subject of how many move up ( especialy A class ) how it will be done, the rationale, how things are scored, etc etc..everytime there are smaller entries in the upper classes. Funny part is how it is justified. One years rationale contradicts the rationale of 2 years from now and only to flip back 2 years later to a past rationale that clearly didnt work...AHHHHH WGI gotta love how they justify things sometimes...lol Edited May 15, 2012 by GUARDLING 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.