Kevin Powell Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Well, not common; but you do have a point. These are the first three examples that pop into my head, though there may be more... 27th Lancers: 20th in 1974 and 4th in 1975 Bridgemen: 26th in 1974, didn't even finish the season in 1975 and 6th in 1976 Kilties: 26th in 1976 and 10th in 1977 Missed Spirit of Atlanta in those same years. 1977 - 23rd (startup corps) 1978 - 6th Just had to put it in there because those are a couple of exciting years to follow competition in Drum Corps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc oldtimer Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Phantom 2008 - 1st (98.125) Phantom 2009 - 9th (89.900) Hey, wait. Were there "the sky is falling" posts in 2009 about PR also? Maybe I just missed them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hostrauser Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 (edited) Hey, wait. Were there "the sky is falling" posts in 2009 about PR also? Maybe I just missed them. People were slamming Phantom from performance 1 in 2009... http://www.drumcorpsplanet.com/forums/index.php/topic/123590-the-official-2009-phantom-regiment-thread/page__st__180 And, just like Cavies this year, the homers immediately came out of the woodwork: "it's only June", "wait until August", etc. I don't know if there was as many "the sky is falling" posts in that thread... however, there also wasn't ANYONE in the thread suggesting Phantom would bounce right back in 2010 like 2009 never happened and be an immediate title contender again. If there had been, I would have told them the same thing I said in this thread: it takes a couple of years to fix all of the show design/instruction problems and recover from a huge standings fall like that. Edited August 21, 2012 by hostrauser 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim K Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 54 ageouts this year. Not so young. There was buzz all year that the corps had many new and younger members and this was a rebuilding year, but 54 ageouts is a significant number. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 There was buzz all year that the corps had many new and younger members and this was a rebuilding year, but 54 ageouts is a significant number. True. Confusing for sure... Hmmmmmmmmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda1234 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 (edited) Let's celebrate some of the other organizations who are really starting to figure it out. Edited August 21, 2012 by Yoda1234 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Let's celebrate some of the other organizations who are realystsrtingto figure it out. Any more, great corps don't have to have an "off" year to place lower. There's simply more great competition on that level. Being as good as the year before can very well equal placing lower. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsubone Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 There was buzz all year that the corps had many new and younger members and this was a rebuilding year, but 54 ageouts is a significant number. Well, they could have had a huge number of rook-outs? That would still make them new, but would be age-outs at the same time. I know many of the top corps have lots of rook-outs every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kickhaltsforlife Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Hahaha... I like the Cadets and BD borg... they actually put up a good fight and defend their corps to the death. Not much defending going on in here... guess the red minus is easier to do than tell me why I'm wrong? They have issues. Design and performance. That is a lot to fix. And I'm just saying that I saw it coming. I felt like design has been hit or miss, and the excellence in performance has been dwindling in the past 3 or so years. If so many people disagree with me, because of the red marks, tell me why you disagree. Or is it because I said something negative about the beloved Cavaliers....... is that all?? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
general_tsos_chicken2 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Hey, wait. Were there "the sky is falling" posts in 2009 about PR also? Maybe I just missed them. probably more than cavaliers posts this year. 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.